Syngenta Seeds, Inc. 

Alpha-Amylase Maize 

Event 3272

OECD Unique Identifier 

SYN-E3272-5

Final Environmental 

Assessment

February 2011

United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. 

Alpha-Amylase Maize 

Event 3272

Final Environmental Assessment

February 2011

Agency Contact:

Cynthia Eck

Document Control Officer

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

USDA APHIS

4700 River Road, Unit 147

Riverdale, MD 20737

__________________________________________________________

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or 

family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

__________________________________________________________

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not 

imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor 

warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are 

mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide 

specific information.

__________________________________________________________

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of 

pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal 

agencies before they can be recommended. 

__________________________________________________________

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, 

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended 

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.
Table of Contents

I. I. Purpose & Need........................................................................ 5

II. II. Affected Environment........................................................... 11

III. III. Alternatives.......................................................................... 22

A. No Action: Continuation as a Regulated Article ................. 22

B. Preferred Alternative: Determination that Event 3272 Corn 

Plants are No Longer Regulated Articles, in Whole............ 22

C. Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further 

Consideration ....................................................................... 23

D. Comparison of Alternatives.................................................. 24

IV. IV. Environmental Consequences.............................................. 27

Methodology and Assumptions................................................. 27

Corn Production......................................................................... 31

Ethanol Production .................................................................... 38

Public Health.............................................................................. 39

Gene Movement......................................................................... 45

Water Use in Ethanol Production .............................................. 48

Animal and Plant Communities................................................. 48

Soil Biology ............................................................................... 52

Conservation Reserve Program ................................................. 54

Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................... 57

Compliance with Statutes, Executive Orders and Regulations.. 60

V. V. Listing of Agencies and Persons Consulted......................... 62

VI. VI. References........................................................................... 63

VII. Appendix A. Biotech Seed Products Available for the 2011 

Planting Season1,2,3..................................................................... 71

VIII. Appendix B. Corn-producing counties in the 28 states that have 

corn ethanol facilities................................................................. 78

IX. Appendix C. Economic Impact Report submitted by Sygenta .. 92
X. Appendix D. Pollen-mediated gene flow report submitted by 

Syngenta................................................................................... 133

XI. Appendix E. Food processing report submitted by Syngenta.. 138

XII. Appendix F. Food processing report specific to masa submitted 

by Syngenta.............................................................................. 140

XIII. Appendix G. Bryson and Roberts report submitted by Syngenta

.................................................................................................. 142

XIV. Appendix H. FDA memo on Event 3272 corn consultation.... 166

XV. Appendix I. Report on DDGS submitted by Syngenta............ 180

XVI. Appendix J. Glossary............................................................... 184
5

I. Purpose & Need

"Protecting American agriculture" is the basic charge of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 

(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 the public health. 

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

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

income.

APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Service’s (BRS) mission is to protect America’s agriculture 

and environment using a science-based regulatory framework that allows for the safe 

development and use of genetically engineered organisms. 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY

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 (Coordinated Framework) (51 FR 23302, 57 FR 22984). The Coordinated 

Framework, published by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, describes the 

comprehensive federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology research and 

products and explains how federal agencies will use existing Federal statutes in a manner to 

ensure public health and environmental safety while maintaining regulatory flexibility to avoid 

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

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

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

required to focus on the characteristics and risks of the biotechnology product, not the process by 

which it is created; (3) agencies are mandated to exercise oversight of genetically engineered 

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

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

agencies involved in regulating genetically engineered organisms: USDA’s Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

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

pesticides that are produced by an organism through techniques of modern biotechnology. 

The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety and proper labeling of all plant-derived foods and 

feeds, including those that are genetically engineered. To help developers of food and feed 

derived from genetically engineered crops comply with their obligations under Federal food 

safety laws, FDA encourages them to participate in a voluntary consultation process. All food 

and feed derived from genetically engineered crops currently on the market in the United States 

have successfully completed this consultation process. 

APHIS is responsible for regulating genetically engineered organisms and plants under the plant 

pest authorities in the Plant Protection Act of 2000, as amended (7 USC § 7701 et seq.) to ensure 

that they do not pose a plant pest risk to the environment.
6

WHAT IS A REGULATED ORGANISM?

Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA), the term “plant pest” is defined as “any living stage of any 

of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any 

plant or plant product: a protozoan; a nonhuman animal; a parasitic plant; a bacterium; a fungus; 

a virus or viroid; an infectious agent or other pathogen; any article similar to or allied with any of 

the articles specified in the preceding paragraphs.” (7 USC § 7702 (14). The PPA gives the 

Secretary broad discretion to regulate plant pests and prohibits persons from importing, 

exporting or moving in interstate commerce plant pests, except as authorized under general or 

specific permits and in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may issue to prevent 

the introduction of plant pests into the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within 

the United States. (7 USC § 7711). In enacting the PPA, Congress found that it is the 

responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture to facilitate commerce in agricultural products and 

other commodities that pose a risk of harboring plant pests in a manner that will reduce, to the 

extent practicable, as determined by the Secretary, the risk of dissemination of plant pests and 

that decisions affecting imports, exports, and interstate movement of products regulated under 

the PPA shall be based on sound science. (7 USC § 7701 (3), (4)).

APHIS’ biotechnology regulations at 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) regulate the importation, interstate movement, or release into 

the environment (use of a regulated article outside the constraints of a physical confinement that 

are found in a laboratory, contained greenhouse, a fermenter, or other contained structure) of 

genetically engineered organisms1

. A genetically engineered organism is regulated by APHIS if 

it is a plant pest or if it or a gene donor or vector used in its construction are plant pests listed in 

7 CFR 340.2. In addition, a genetically engineered organism can be considered a regulated 

article if APHIS has reason to believe it presents a plant pest risk.

WHAT IS THIS PROJECT ABOUT?

APHIS’ regulations provide for developers of genetically engineered plants to file a petition for 

nonregulated status (7 CFR 340.6). The developer is required to submit scientific data and other 

information to demonstrate that the plant does not come within the statutory definition of a plant 

pest, and, therefore, is no longer subject to APHIS jurisdiction and regulatory oversight. 

On October 7, 2005, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. filed a petition for a determination of nonregulated 

status for a corn variety (Event 3272) genetically engineered to produce a microbial enzyme that 

facilitates ethanol production. Syngenta requests that APHIS make a determination that these 

corn plants do not pose a plant pest risk, and, therefore, shall no longer be considered regulated 

articles under 7 CFR part 340. 

 1 A regulated article is any organism which has been altered or produced through genetic engineering, if the donor organism, 

recipient organism, or vector or vector agent belongs to any genera or taxa designated in 340.2 and meets the definition of plant 

pest, or is an unclassified organism and/or an organism whose classification is unknown, or any product which contains such an 

organism, or any other organism or product altered or produced through genetic engineering which the Administrator determines 

is a plant pest or has reason to believe is a plant pest. Excluded are recipient microorganisms which are not plant pests and which 

have resulted from the addition of genetic material from a donor organism where the material is well characterized and contains 

only non-coding regulatory regions. § 340.1
7

OBJECTIVES FOR EVENT 3272 CORN

The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed on August 8, 2005, includes a Renewable Fuels 

Standard that directs the doubling of the use of ethanol and biodiesel in the U.S. fuel supply by 

2012 to 7.5 billion gallons (42 USC 15801). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, passed in December 2007, includes a provision to expand consumption of alternative fuels, 

including but not limited to ethanol, to 36 billion gallons in 2022. On October 13, 2010, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waived a limitation on selling gasoline that contains 

more than 10 percent ethanol for model year 2007 and newer cars and light trucks. The waiver 

applies to fuel that contains up to 15 percent ethanol – known as E15. The waiver was extended 

to model year 2001 through 2006 passenger vehicles, including cars, SUVs, and light pickup 

trucks on January 21, 2011. (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/, accessed 

February 8, 2011). With over 194 corn ethanol plants in operation in 28 different states, and at 

least 7 more under construction (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/bio-refinery-locations/, accessed 

February 7, 2011), corn-based ethanol production may be a feasible way to meet and exceed the 

ethanol consumption benchmark for 2012 set in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and 2022 goals 

set by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

Ethanol has also become the oxygenate of choice for reformulated gasoline (RFG), due to state 

bans of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and the increased liability to oil companies for MTBE 

spills (Hoffman et al. 2007). As provided in the Federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, 

cities with the worst smog pollution are required to use RFG, while other cities voluntarily 

adopted the RFG program. The decreased use of MTBE in RFG, and the subsequent benchmark 

set by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

along with other Federal programs and policies [see (Hoffman et al. 2007) and (Schnepf 2006)

for a thorough discussion], have combined to stimulate the demand for ethanol. 

Event 3272 corn is expected to help the U.S. meet its goals for ethanol production. According to 

the company, the overall efficiency of the dry grind process with using Event 3272 grain is 

greater than conventional dry ethanol production, due to greater ethanol production per unit of

Event 3272 grain, and greater throughput efficiency during the dry grind process itself. 

Event 3272 corn has been field tested in the United States since 2002 as authorized by USDA 

notifications and permits listed in Table 1-1, on page 17 of the Petition. The list compiles a 

number of test sites in diverse regions of the U.S. including the major corn growing areas of the 

Midwest and winter nurseries in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Field tests conducted under APHIS 

oversight allow for evaluation of Event 3272 corn in an agricultural setting while imposing 

measures to minimize the risk of persistence in the environment after the completion of the test. 

Data are gathered on multiple parameters and are used by the applicants to evaluate agronomic 

characteristics and product performance, and are used by APHIS to determine if the new variety 

poses a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS 2009). 

Once APHIS determines that a GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, the GE variety

may be traditionally bred with other conventional varieties or other GE varieties as determined 

by the applicant or developer, and is not subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 

340. Syngenta currently has four GE corn varieties that may be stacked2

 2 “Stacked” refers to two or more traits (e.g. herbicide tolerance and insect resistance) in one plant. 

with Event 3272 corn: 
8

three varieties that have an insect-resistance trait (Bt11, Mir604, and Mir162) and one variety 

that has an herbicide-tolerance trait (GA21). These corn lines (Bt11, MIR604, Mir 162 and 

GA21) have all been granted non-regulated status, and the environmental assessments conducted 

by APHIS for each of these products can be found at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR APHIS ACTION

Under the authority of 7 CFR part 340, APHIS has the responsibility for the safe development 

and use of genetically engineered organisms under the provisions of the Plant Protection Act. 

APHIS must respond to petitioners that request a determination of the nonregulated status of 

genetically engineered organisms, including genetically engineered crop plants such as Event 

3272 corn. If 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.

As a Federal agency subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), APHIS has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to consider 

the potential environmental effects of this proposed action (granting nonregulated status) and the 

reasonable alternatives to that action consistent with NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-

1508, 7 CFR 1b, and 7 CFR part 372). This EA has been prepared in order to specifically 

evaluate the effects on the quality of the human environment3 that may result from the 

deregulation of Event 3272 corn. 

OTHER REGULATORY APPROVALS

Event 3272 corn has successfully completed the consultation process with the FDA concerning 

food and feed safety (Appendix H). Event 3272 corn does not contain any genetically 

engineered pesticides or tolerance to herbicides; therefore, EPA consultation is not required for 

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

implementation of this action. A list of the current status of U.S. and international approvals is 

found in Table 1.

Table 1. Status of reviews. Syngenta has submitted documentation on Event 3272 corn to the 

appropriate officials in the following countries:

Country Type of Submission Date Approval

USA

FDA Consultation 2005 20074

USDA Petition 2005

 

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

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

4 http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=Submit&evidcode=Event%203272, Date 

Accessed: February 7, 2011 5 http://www2.syngenta.com/en/media/mediareleases/en_100802.html and http://www.bsba.ag/BSBA/Apen.html, 

Date Accessed: February 7, 2011
9

China

Food, Feed, 

Processing including 

Environment

Currently in review

Australia/

New Zealand Food 2006 20084

Taiwan Food 2006 20105

Korea Environment 2006

Food 2006

Canada

Food 2006 20084

Feed 2006 20084

Environment 2006 20084

Japan

Food 2006 20105

Feed 2006 20105

Environment 2006 20105

Switzerland Food 2006

Feed 2006

Russia Food 2006 20105

Feed 2006 20105

Philippines Food, feed, processing 2007 20084

Mexico Food and feed 2007 20084

EU Food and feed Currently in review

Indonesia Food, feed, processing Currently in review

Republic of South 

Africa Food and feed 2006 Not approved6

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

APHIS-BRS routinely seeks public comment on draft environmental assessments. The issues 

discussed in this EA were developed by considering the public concern for ethanol production, 

as well as issues raised in public comments submitted for other environmental assessments of 

genetically engineered organisms, concerns raised in lawsuits, as well as those issues of concern 

that have been raised by various stakeholders. These issues, including those regarding the 

agricultural production of corn using various production methods and the environmental and 

food/feed safety of genetically engineered plants were addressed to analyze the potential 

environmental impacts of Event 3272 corn. 

This EA and the petition submitted by Syngenta were available for public comment for a period 

of 60 days (7 CFR § 340.6(d)(2)). Subsequently, APHIS reopened the public comment period 

for an additional 30-day comment period to allow interested persons additional time to submit 

comments on the petition, environmental assessment, and the revised PPRA to clarify APHIS’ 

definition of a plant pest in response comments received during the initial comment period. 

Comments received during these two comment periods were used to analyze and inform APHIS’

 

6

APHIS Docket 2007-0016; APHIS-2007-0016-0221.1 Attachment to public comment from Bill Freese, May 12, 

2009
10

determination of whether to grant nonregulated status, and also whether there is a requirement to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in response to Syngenta’s petition for a 

determination of nonregulated status of Event 3272 corn. 

ISSUES

As stated above, the issues considered in this EA were developed based on APHIS’ review of a 

petition deregulate certain genetically engineered organisms, and for this particular EA, the 

specific deregulation of Event 3272 corn for ethanol production. 

Management Considerations:

• Corn Production

• Cropping Practices

• Tillage Practices

• Pesticide Use

• Specialty Corn and Processing

• Ethanol Production

Public Health Considerations

• Human Health

• Worker Safety

• Animal Feed and DDGS

Environmental Considerations

• Gene Movement (Pollen flow)

• Water Use in Ethanol Production

• Animals

• Plants

• Biodiversity

• Soil 

• Conservation Reserve Program 

DECISIONS TO BE MADE

APHIS will use the information from this EA, and the comments it received, to make a 

determination of whether to grant nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn and also whether to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in connection with its determination of whether to 

grant nonregulated status to 3272 corn. 
11

II. Affected Environment

CORN PRODUCTION

Corn (Zea mays L.), otherwise known as maize, is the world's most widely grown cereal, 

reflecting its ability to adapt to a wide range of production environments (Morris 1998). Corn is 

an annual plant typically grown in zones of abundant rainfall and fertile soils (Morris 1998). In 

the U.S., corn is grown in temperate regions due to the moisture level and number of frost-free 

days required to reach maturity. Corn varieties having a relative maturity of 100 to 115 days are 

typically grown in the U.S. corn belt, which includes Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio —

approximately 50% of all corn grown in the U.S. is from these four states. The Corn Belt also

includes parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, 

and Kentucky. 

Agricultural production systems may affect the surrounding environment, and corn production is 

no different. Depending on the region and practices used, corn production includes inputs such 

as fertilizer (e.g., synthetic fertilizers, manure, and compost containing nitrogen and phosphorus) 

and pesticides (synthetic or NOP-approved insecticides, herbicides and fungicides), as well as 

irrigation. Each of these inputs can affect the environment including, but not limited to, 

increasing nutrient pollution in waterways, alterations in biodiversity due to pesticide inputs, and 

depletion of the water table or increased salinity in the fields due to irrigation. 

There are available data for GE corn acreage (in parentheses for 2010) for the following corn belt 

states that also have ethanol facilities: Illinois (82%), Indiana (83%), Iowa (90%), Kansas (90%), 

Michigan (80%), Minnesota (92%), Missouri (79%), Nebraska (91%), North Dakota (93%), 

Ohio (71%), South Dakota (95%), Texas (85%) and Wisconsin (80%) (USDA-NASS 2010b). 

GE corn is currently being grown for use in ethanol plants, although data is unavailable as to the 

percent of GE compared to non-GE corn used in ethanol facilities.

Farming with GE and non-GE Varieties

Conventional farming covers a broad scope of farming practices, ranging from farmers who only 

occasionally use synthetic pesticides and fertilizers to those farmers whose harvest depends on 

regular synthetic pesticide and fertilizer inputs. The use of GE varieties may be used in 

conventional farming, but there is also a smaller segment of conventional farmers that may grow 

non-GE corn for GE-sensitive markets. 

United States corn production for 2010, including production of conventional and genetically 

engineered corn varieties, was 81 million harvested acres (USDA-NASS 2010b). Of the total 

corn acres planted in 2010, 86% were GE corn varieties (USDA-NASS 2010b), slightly up from 

the 85% of 2009, and up from 73% in 2007 (USDA-NASS 2007a), and 61% in 2006 (USDANASS 2006). About 5 billion bushels of corn grain, which includes both GE and non-GE 

varieties, were used for ethanol production in 2010 (USDA ERS 2011), which corresponds to 

approximately 40% of U.S. corn production. 

In organic systems, the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers is limited7

 7 7 CFR § 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production

, and genetically 

engineered crops are prohibited. For this EA, only organic farming systems produced using 
12

methods that fall under the USDA National Organic Program definition of organic farming and 

are certified organic production systems will be considered. Event 3272 corn is not approved for 

use in organic systems because it is genetically engineered. Practices growers may use to 

exclude genetically engineered products include planting only organic seed, planting earlier or 

later than neighboring farmers who may be using GE crops so that the crops will flower at 

different times and not pollinate each other, and employing adequate isolation distances between 

the organic field and the fields of neighbors to minimize the chance that pollen will be carried 

between the fields. Organic growers must also maintain records to show that production and 

handling procedures comply with USDA organic standards.

Certified organic corn acreage is a small percentage of overall corn production. Extrapolating 

from the most recent certified organic corn acreage data published in 2010 (USDA-NASS 2010); 

the estimated harvested acreage for certified organic corn in 2008 was 168,303 acres, 

representing 0.21% of the total corn acreage harvested for grain in the U.S. (USDA-NASS 

2009a). APHIS was unable to locate any ethanol production facilities that solely use organic 

corn; if organic corn is used exclusively for any ethanol production it is at a very small scale.

Agronomic Practices

Today, conventional and organic growers can choose from hundreds of corn hybrids marketed by 

companies that produce seed (refer to Appendix A for examples of available GE varieties for use 

in conventional systems). Hybrids differ generally in agronomic characteristics, including 

disease and pest resistance and length of growing period (Olson and Sander 1988). The optimum 

planting date for corn is influenced by factors such as the locality, environmental conditions, 

seed growing period, and seed variety, and it usually occurs in April or May. Harvesting 

generally occurs from mid-to-late September through November; the use of a combine 

(mechanical harvesting) is the standard practice for grain production in both conventional and 

organic systems. 

Crop rotations (successive planting of different crops on the same land) are used to optimize soil 

nutrition and fertility, and reduce pathogen loads. Crops used in rotation with corn vary 

regionally, but there has been an increase in the number of fields that have a corn-to-corn 

rotation, as opposed to rotation to another crop besides corn (Erickson and Lowenberg-DeBoer 

2005). The increase in corn-to-corn rotations, mainly in conventional systems, has been 

attributed to the increase in corn prices due to higher demand, mainly for ethanol production 

(Hart 2006, Stockton et al. 2007). In some areas, the corn-to-corn rotation causes increased 

levels of fertilizer inputs (Sawyer 2007). Insect pests may also increase in corn-to-corn rotations 

as this system may provide a continual host environment for some insects and diseases. 

However, in a corn-soybean rotation, continuously growing corn for multiple growing seasons 

can decrease populations of soybean pests, such as soybean cyst nematode. Thus, corn-to-corn 

rotations may be used in situations outside of growing corn for ethanol production, and corn-tocorn rotation has been used prior to the relatively higher increase in corn for ethanol (Erickson 

and Lowenberg-DeBoer 2005). 

Pesticides Use

Agronomic practices for conventional or GE corn used in food/feed production and ethanol 

production for fuel are similar. Corn production typically involves the extensive use of inputs 

and technology (Rooney and Serna-Saldivar 1987, Shaw 1988, Pollak and White 1995, White 
13

and Pollak 1995), and the main emphasis is placed on obtaining the best yield (Thomas 2007).

Organic farming systems allow the use of some synthetic pesticides, and a list these can be found 

at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl. 

Weed control methods differ depending on a number of factors including locality, grower 

resources, crop trait, and farming system; the techniques may be direct (e.g. mechanical8 and 

chemical9) or indirect (e.g. cultural10) (Olson and Sander 1988). (Synthetic herbicides are not 

allowed in organic systems; a list of approved herbicides for use in organic systems may be 

found at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl) Pest 

control (weeds and insects) in corn production is essential in order to obtain good crop yield. 

Generally, growers will manage a range of pests simultaneously. Therefore, growers will likely 

choose from a number of techniques to effectively and efficiently manage pests in their fields. In 

2005, the most prevalent pest management practice was pesticide use (USDA-ERS 2005). 

Ultimately, the management practices utilized by a grower will depend on the types of pests in 

their field, the level of infestation, the cropping system, the type of soil, cost, weather, time, and 

labor. Practices to cope with pests, nutrient needs, and moisture and temperature requirements 

vary regionally. 

Specialty Corn Uses and Processing

Corn produced in the United States has a wide variety of end-use functions. For the 2009/10 

Market Year, of the almost 15 billion bushels of corn in U.S. supply, 11 billion bushels were 

consumed domestically (approximately 2 billion bushels were exported and the rest remained in 

supply). Of the 11 billion bushels used domestically - 5.1 billion were used for animal feed and 

residual purposes, 4.7 billion were used for ethanol production, 770 million were used for the 

production of corn syrup and other sweeteners, 250 million were used to produce starch, about 

194 million were used to produce cereals and other products, and 22 million were used to 

produce seed for future cropping (USDA-ERS 2011). Approximately 8% (about a billion 

bushels) of the U.S. grown corn is specialty corn, with unique properties that are produced for a 

specific market or use (USGC 2006). Some examples of specialty corn include popcorn, white 

corn, blue corn, sweet corn, waxy corn, hard endosperm, higher fermentable corn, high protein 

and modified protein corn including corn with high amylose levels, high oil corn, non-GE for 

GE-sensitive markets, and organic corn (USGC 2006). 

These corn varieties are specified by buyers including end-users of corn for specialized 

production, and premiums are paid for delivering a product that meets purity and quality 

standards for the corn variety Although some specialty corn grain is easy to tell apart (e.g., 

popcorn, white corn, blue corn), most specialty corn varieties look similar to traditional corn but 

have compositional differences that allow for specified uses. For example, waxy corn has been 

bred to be 99% amylopectin (one component of starch), compared to 75% in typical food grade 

corn. High amylose corn is 55%-70% amylose, compared to 25% in common corn. These two 

types of specialty corn, waxy and high amylose, are used to produce specialty starches for use in 

various applications such as production of plastics, textiles, adhesives, food thickeners, and 

candy (Thomison, no date). 

 8 Includes tillage and mowing. 

9 Herbicide application. 

10 Crop rotation/spot spraying of herbicide/hand removal of weeds.
14

Both high amylose corn and waxy corn are grown using closed loop or identity preservation 

systems (similar to other specialty corn) as each of the corn varieties needs to meet the 

requirements and specifications of buyers (Brown et al., 1985). These value-added corn products 

are produced and handled in an isolated production stream meant to preserve the identity and 

integrity of the product. Any variation in either the composition of the corn (accidental 

pollination by other, non-specialty corn) or in starch processing (misdirection of the wrong corn 

variety to a corn processing facility, for example) can cause a failure to meet production 

specifications and may result in poor or failed performance at a manufacturing facility (Hallauer 

2001). Mixing of specialty corn varieties with other corn types during handling or production 

will diminish product value and potentially disrupt downstream processing or product supply 

availability, for either specialty corn products or for products derived from other corn varieties. 

Product differentiation and market segmentation in the specialty corn industry includes 

mechanisms to keep track of the grain (traceability), methods for identity preservation (IP, 

including closed-loop systems), and quality assurance processes (e.g., ISO9001-2000 

certification), as well as contracts between growers and buyers that specify delivery agreements. 

Corn processing facilities, such as starch processing facilities, have quality control processes in 

place to maintain the integrity of their processes and assure buyers that the products produced 

using specialty corn will be usable for specific end products. 

ETHANOL PRODUCTION

Ethanol, also known as grain alcohol or ethyl alcohol, is the type of alcohol produced by 

fermenting and distilling simple sugars from biological sources. It is the same kind of alcohol 

found in all alcoholic beverages, although commercial ethanol plants add a poison (two to five 

percent) to make it unfit for human consumption (Morris and Hill 2006). Corn ethanol refineries 

account for more than 98 % of U.S. ethanol production (http://www.ethanolrfa.org, Accessed 

February 2011). 

Approximately 40% of the 2010 corn production was used for ethanol production (USDA ERS 

2011). Commercial ethanol production uses conventional or GE corn; organic corn production 

for ethanol is typically small scale production for herbal medicinal use. The amount of GE corn 

currently used for ethanol production is not tracked by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics 

Survey. However, biotechnology-derived varieties make up 86% of corn acreage in the U.S. 

(USDA-NASS 2010b), suggesting that GE corn is currently used in ethanol production. 

The Federal Energy Act of 2005 includes a nationwide renewable fuels standard (RFS) that will 

result in the use of more than 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012 (42 USC 

15801, page 1069). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed in December 

2007, includes a provision to expand consumption of alternative fuels, including but not limited 

to ethanol, to 36 billion gallons in 2022. As of February 3, 2011, there were currently 194

operational corn ethanol plants with a capacity of approximately 14 billion gallons per year 

(www.ethanolrfa.org). Biofuels have been championed and pilloried as an alternative, renewable 

energy source. Proponents believe that corn-produced ethanol can increase energy security, 

reduce vehicle emissions and provide a new income stream for farmers. Critics assert that cornbased ethanol will increase energy-price volatility, food prices, and even increase life-cycle 

emissions of greenhouse gases and decrease water table levels. 
15

There are two types of ethanol processing plants in the U.S., dry-grind and wet-milling plants. 

Dry mill facilities account for 82% of ethanol production and wet mills 18% (RFA 2007). As 

Event 3272 corn will be produced for dry-grind ethanol production, this assessment will include 

only those related to dry-grind ethanol processing using corn as the feedstock.

The American Coalition for Ethanol, a pro-ethanol website, provides an interactive tour of an 

ethanol processing plant at http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=73&parentid=73 (accessed July 

2008). Below is a review of the dry-grind ethanol process from information from the Renewable 

Fuels Association, also a proponent of ethanol, and Mosier and Ileleji (Mosier and Ileleji 2006):

There are 5 major steps in the dry-grind method of ethanol production:

1. Milling. In dry milling, the entire corn kernel is first ground into flour, which is referred 

to in the industry as "meal" and processed without separating out the various component 

parts of the grain. Water is added to the meal to create a slurry. Microbial enzymes 

(alpha-amylase) are added to the slurry to start the conversion of starch to dextrose. 

2. Liquefaction. The slurry is processed in a high-temperature cooker to reduce bacteria 

levels ahead of fermentation. Jet cookers inject steam into the corn flour slurry and cook 

it at temperatures above 100°C. The cooked slurry, now called mash, is allowed to cool, 

additional microbial alpha-amylase is added, and liquefying continues. Sulfuric acid is 

typically added to maintain pH.

3. Saccharification. The mash is further cooled after liquefaction and a second microbial 

enzyme (glucoamylase) is added. This enzyme completes the breakdown of the starch 

into glucose, a simple sugar. This step often occurs as the mash is transferred to 

fermenters and continues throughout the next step.

4. Fermentation. Yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol and carbon dioxide 

(CO2) begins. Ammonia is added for pH control and as a nutrient to the yeast. The 

fermentation process generally takes about 40 to 50 hours. During this part of the process, 

the mash is agitated and kept cool to facilitate the activity of the yeast. The CO2 released 

during fermentation is either released into the atmosphere or captured and sold for use in 

carbonating soft drinks and beverages and the manufacture of dry ice.

5. Distillation and recovery. After fermentation, the resulting "beer" is transferred to 

distillation columns where the ethanol is separated from the remaining "stillage." The 

ethanol is concentrated to 190 proof using conventional distillation and then is 

dehydrated to approximately 200 proof in a molecular sieve system. The ethanol product 

is then blended with about 5% denaturant (such as natural gasoline) to render it 

undrinkable and thus not subject to beverage alcohol tax. It is then ready for shipment to 

gasoline terminals or retailers. The stillage is centrifuged into liquid (thin stillage) and 

solid (distillers’ grains) fragments. Some of the thin stillage is recycled to the beginning 

of the dry-grind process to conserve the water used by the facility. The rest of the thin 

stillage passes through evaporators to remove a significant portion of the water to 

produce thickened syrup. Usually, the syrup is blended with the distillers’ grains to 

produce distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS), a high quality and nutritious livestock 
16

feed. When markets for the feed product are close the plant, the byproduct may be sold 

without drying as distillers’ grains or wet distillers’ grains. DDGS in wet form is prone 

to deterioration, especially in warmer weather; consequently, the use of wet DDGS is 

limited to producers located close to dry grind plants (Rausch and Belyea 2006).

PUBLIC HEALTH

Public health concerns surrounding field corn, like Event 3272 corn and the resultant ethanol coproduct of DDGS, focus primarily on human and animal consumption. Non-GE corn varieties, 

both those developed for conventional use and for use in organic production systems, are not 

routinely required to be evaluated by any regulatory agency in the U.S. for food or feed safety 

prior to release in the market. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (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 Event 3272 corn must be in compliance with 

all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. 

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

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

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

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

meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory 

issues regarding the bioengineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and 

regulatory assessment of the food; FDA evaluates the submission and responds to the developer 

by letter. For a list of completed consultations on GE organisms, see 

http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/default.htm (accessed February 7, 2011).

FDA completed a consultation of Event 3272 on August 7, 2007 (see Appendix H).

Another potential concern is worker safety, both on the farm and at the ethanol plant. Farmers 

use an array of chemicals, including insecticides and herbicides, which may have toxic properties 

during application. Ethanol plant workers deal with hazardous chemicals such as sulfuric acid 

and liquid ammonia during the processing of corn grain to ethanol and DDGS.

GENE MOVEMENT

Gene movement to other corn plants

Corn plants are pollinated through wind movement of pollen to other receptive corn plants. In 

the U.S., there are no other species that can be pollinated by corn pollen without human 

intervention (e.g., manually forcing reproduction in the laboratory) (USDA-APHIS 2009). 

Public concern surrounding gene movement for GE corn is between GE and non-GE corn plants. 

Currently, 86% of the conventionally grown corn in the U.S. is GE corn (USDA-NASS 2010b). 

Specialty corn, those with traits of particular interest to various markets such as blue corn, waxy 

corn or organic corn, are typically grown with various management practices that intend to limit 

corn pollen from reaching the specialty corn crop during the period of time that the specialty 

corn crop is receptive to pollen. For example, the NOP has requirements for organic plans to 

address pollen flow from GE crops (Kuepper 2002, Krueger 2007, Kuepper et al. 2007). The 

Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) also has information for specialty 

corn crops, and a protocol for growing non-GE corn (AOSCA 2008). There is a price premium 

associated with growing these types of specialty crops in conjunction with the extra regimens in 

place to maximize the purity of these specialty crops. For example, in 2008, conventional field 
17

corn averaged $3.90/bushel (USDA-NASS, 2009b), whereas organic corn averaged $7.08/bushel 

(USDA-NASS 2010a). 

A recent paper reviewed studies investigating gene flow and cross-fertilization studies in corn 

grain production fields, and using the data from these studies recommended 50m (approx. 164ft) 

as the distance needed to isolate GE corn and non-GE corn (Sanvido et al. 2008). The authors 

limited their analysis to studies that confirmed fertilization in the non-GE corn plants, and 

excluded studies on pollen dispersal (e.g., Raynor et al. 1972, Di Giovanni et al. 1995, Aylor et 

al. 2003) that only measured pollen flow, because pollen flow does not necessarily result in 

fertilization. Successful cross-fertilization requires many different biological and physical 

factors, such as identical timing of flowering between corn fields, viability of pollen, and

presence of physical barriers; accordingly pollen dispersal is not equivalent to cross fertilization. 

Sanvido et al. (2008) analysis of the existing studies found that the cross-fertilization rate in nonGE corn typically remained below 0.5% at this distance, and this result was validated when 

analyzing cross-fertilization events in large scale studies (e.g. Henry et al. 2003, Weber et al. 

2007). 

There is one scientific study typically used by critics of GE crops to refute the use of distance as 

an isolation strategy. The study found cross-fertilization rates higher at comparable distances 

than other studies (Jones and Brooks 1950). For example, Jones and Brooks (1950) found crossfertilization to be as high as 2.5 % at 660ft, which is the isolation distance used by AOSCA to 

isolate corn fields for seed production (AOSCA 2004). One potential reason for the discrepancy 

between this study and almost all other gene flow studies in corn may be due to the type of corn 

used in the Jones and Brooks study. Jones and Brooks (1950) investigated the appropriate 

isolation distance for seed production in open-pollinated varieties, and not for hybrid varieties. 

Due the biology of open-pollinated varieties, these types of plants may be more receptive to 

pollen over a longer period of time than hybrid corn plants (Sanvido et al. 2008), allowing for a 

greater chance of pollination events. Consequently, the results from Jones and Brooks (1950) 

may be an overestimation of cross-fertilization potential for hybrid corn plants.

WATER USE

Corn plants use a significant amount of water during growth. About 4,000 gallons of water are 

needed to produce one bushel of corn, and in 2010, 81 million acres, or approximately 12.4 

billion bushels, of corn were harvested in the U.S (USDA-NASS 2010b). However only about 

15% of U.S. corn acres are irrigated, receiving on average 750 gallons of water per day, which is 

the equivalent of about 3% of the average rainfall on each acre grown (McLaren, 2009). Most

corn acreage only receives the ambient rainfall in a given area and corn plants typically transpire 

more water than what is retained by the plant, meaning that most of the water used by a corn 

plant is released to the atmosphere.

Water is also used during ethanol production; about 4.7 gallons of water are needed to produce a 

gallon of ethanol (Shapouri and Gallagher 2005). Water is used during the production of 

microbial alpha-amylase, as well as during its transport by tanker truck to ethanol plants

(Appendix C). 
18

ANIMAL AND PLANT COMMUNITIES

Animals

Corn fields have been known to be visited by birds, deer and small mammals (e.g. deer mice), 

and other types of wildlife species. Although many birds visit row-crop fields such as corn, 

numbers are low and few nest there (Patterson and Best 1996). The red-winged blackbird 

(Agelaius phoeniceus) is the most abundant bird in North America; they are often initially 

attracted to corn fields to feed on insect pests but then feed on the corn. Annually, this bird 

destroys over 360,000 tons of field corn and substantial amounts of sweet corn (Dolbeer 1990); 

other abundant species of birds that forage and/or nest on and around corn include the horned 

lark (Eremophila alpestris), the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), and the vesper sparrow 

(Pooecetes gramineus) (Patterson and Best 1996). Deer, such as the white-tailed (Odocoileus 

virginianus), find field corn attractive because it functions both as food and cover throughout the 

latter half of the growing season (Vercauteren and Hygnstrom 1993). Deer can significantly 

damage or completely destroy small corn fields that are surrounded by woody or brushy areas; 

however, deer damage to large corn fields is often limited to a few rows closest to the wooded 

areas (Neilsen 2005). The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) is the most common small 

mammal in almost any agricultural field (Stallman and Best 1996, Sterner et al. 2003). The deer 

mouse feeds on a wide variety of plant and animal matter depending on availability, but 

primarily feeds on seeds and insects. The deer mouse has been considered beneficial in 

agroecosystems because it consumes both weed and pest insect species. The meadow vole 

(Microtus pennsylvanicus) feeds primarily on fresh grass, sedges, and herbs, but also on seeds 

and grains. The meadow vole may also be considered beneficial for its role in the consumption 

of weeds, but can be a significant agricultural pest where abundant as they rely on cover absent 

from tilled agriculture. The lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) feeds 

primarily on seeds of weeds and available crops, such as corn and wheat. This species has the 

potential to damage agricultural crops, although it can also be considered beneficial when eating 

pest insects, such as grasshoppers and cutworms. 

Although many of the invertebrate organisms found in corn-producing areas are considered 

pests, such as the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) and the corn rootworm (Diabrotica 

spp.), many others are considered beneficial. Numerous insects and related arthropods perform 

valuable functions; they pollinate plants, contribute to the decay of organic matter, cycle soil 

nutrients, and attack other insects and mites that are considered to be pests.

Plants

The landscape surrounding a corn field varies depending on the region. In certain areas, corn 

fields may be bordered by other corn (or any other crop); fields may also be surrounded by 

wooden and/or pasture/grassland areas. Therefore, the types of vegetation, including weeds, 

around a corn field depend on the area where the corn is planted. A variety of weeds dwell in and 

around corn fields; those species will also vary depending on the region where the corn is 

planted. Weeds compete with crops for water, nutrients, light, and other growth factors. Each 

year in the U.S., corn yields are threatened by more than 200 weed species (Heap 2008). Weed 

species such as giant foxtail and barnyardgrass have been shown to reduce corn yields by up to 

13 and 35%, respectively (Bosnic and Swanton 1997, Fausay et al. 1997). Common weeds that 

cause problems in corn fields include velvetleaf, common cocklebur, common lambsquarters 

(annuals) and quackgrass and Johnsongrass (perennials).
19

Biological Diversity

Species diversity and abundance in corn agro-ecosystems may differ between the three corn 

production methods; GE, conventional, or organic. Many studies over the last 10 years have 

investigated the differences in biological diversity and abundance between GE and non-GE 

fields, particularly those GE crops that are resistant to insects (e.g., Bt crops) or herbicides (e.g., 

glyphosate-tolerant or glufosinate-tolerant crops). Each side of the GE debate has a multitude of 

studies to pick from to support their case; opponents of GE will point to studies that indicate 

potential decreases in biological diversity and/or abundance due to GE crops, particularly due to 

the presence of a pesticidal protein in some GE crops (Bt) (e.g., (Hansen Jesse and Obrycki 

2000, Ponsard et al. 2002, Pilcher et al. 2005). GE-detractors will also use studies investigating 

how decreases in weed populations due to the use of herbicides and herbicide-tolerant crops 

results in decreases in animal populations that use weeds as a food or refuge source, which may 

reduce overall biological diversity in farm fields (Marshall et al. 2003). On the other side, 

supporters of GE technology will use studies that compare GE crops, such as Bt corn, to non-GE 

crops sprayed with insecticides to demonstrate that GE crops do not cause any changes in 

arthropod abundance or diversity (e.g., (Bitzer et al. 2005, Torres and Ruberson 2005, Romeis et 

al. 2006, Marvier et al. 2007, Chen et al. 2008, Wolfenbarger et al. 2008) or may even increase 

biological diversity (e.g., (Romeis et al. 2006, Marvier et al. 2007, Wolfenbarger et al. 2008) in 

agro-ecosystems. GE proponents may also showcase studies that demonstrate herbicide-tolerant 

corn, when compared to conventional corn production, does not result in changes in arthropod 

abundance and may even increase species diversity during different times of the year (e.g., 

(Brooks et al. 2003, Haughton et al. 2003, Hawes et al. 2003, Roy et al. 2003). 

SOIL BIOLOGY

The soil environment in and around corn fields is complex, rich in microorganisms and 

arthropods. The corn root system acts as a soil modifier due to its association with several 

microbial groups such as bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and mites. Bacteria typically represent the 

most abundant microbes in the soil followed by fungi. These microbial groups play an important 

and particular role in the ecology of the soil, including nutrimental cycling and the availability of 

nutrients for plant growth. In addition, certain microbial organisms may contribute to the 

protection of the root system against soil pathogens (OECD 2003). 

Research shows that crop soils are prone to degradation due to the disturbance and exposure of 

the top surface layer by certain agronomic practices. Two environmental impacts of soil 

degradation are the decline in water quality and the contribution to the greenhouse effect (Lal 

and Bruce 1999). It has been shown that a decline in soil quality and soil resilience11 enhances 

the greenhouse effect through emissions of radiatively-active gases12 (CO2, N2O) and depletion 

of the soil carbon pool (Lal 2003, US-EPA 2008) . In turn, a decrease in carbon aggregation and 

sequestration in the soil leads to increase runoff and soil erosion. 

CONSERVATION ACREAGE

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is America's largest and most effective private-lands 

conservation program, with more than 36 million acres enrolled. Under CRP, farmers and 

ranchers plant grasses and trees in crop fields and along streams. The plantings stop soil and 

 11 The ability of a soil to restore itself. 12 Gases that absorb incoming solar radiation or outgoing infrared in turn, affecting the temperature of the 

atmosphere. 
20

nutrients from washing into regional waterways and provide habitat for wildlife (USDA-FSA 

2007). 

CRP had 33.7 million enrolled acres as of in 2009 (USDA-FSA 2009). CRP participants enroll 

in contracts for 10 to 15 years every three years. With the increased demand for cropland due to 

market demands for agricultural crops over the last few years, CRP enrollment acreage is 

expected to decrease. For example, of 15.7 million acres of CRP contracts that expired in 2007, 

only 85% were re-enrolled or extended, resulting in 2.3 million acres of cropland removed from 

the CRP program (USDA-FSA 2007). That trend has continued as another 3 million acres have 

been removed from the program since 2007 (USDA-FSA 2009). The changes of some of 

conservation program land to agricultural systems may alter the biodiversity on these acres. 

ANIMAL FEED: DISTILLERS GRAINS WITH SOLUBLES

A bushel of corn going into an ethanol plant yields about 2.8 gallons of ethanol and 16-18 

pounds of DDGS. As a result of increased ethanol production, the quantity of distillers grains 

available in the U.S. increased from 1.9 million metric tons in 1999 to 8.3 million metric tons in 

2005 (a 340 percent increase), and then more than tripled again to over 34 million metric tons in 

2010 (Hoffman and Baker, 2010).

Approximately 90% of the distillers grains produced in U.S. facilities are used in domestic 

animal feed. In North America, over 80% of DDGS are used in ruminant diets, but DDGS are 

also used for hog, swine, broiler, and turkey feed. Currently, ethanol plants do not discriminate 

between GE and non-GE corn. Given that 80% of corn production is GE, the DDGS produced 

and used as animal feed are likely produced with some GE corn varieties. 

 

Because of the near complete fermentation of starch during the ethanol process, the remaining 

amino acids, fat, minerals and vitamins in DDGS increase approximately three-fold in 

concentration compared to levels found in corn (Rausch and Belyea 2006). This can result in 

concerns regarding phosphorous and animal waste disposal, sulfur diet content, and mycotoxin 

concentrations in DDGS.

Phosphorous concentrations in DDGS can significantly increase both phosphorus diet content as 

well as the resulting animal waste products when used as feed (Morse et al. 1992). Increased 

phosphorus in animal waste leads to waste disposal concerns (Rausch and Belyea 2006) and 

concerns about increased levels of phosphorus pollution of local and national bodies of water 

through agricultural runoff. 

High dietary sulfur concentration in DDGS may also be a concern; it can lead to excessive 

sulfide concentrations in the rumen, and may cause a shift in the ruminal microbial population to 

include bacteria that produce high levels of thiaminases (Rausch and Belyea 2006). This reduces 

the thiamine available to be absorbed from the rumen and results in an effective thiamine 

deficiency which may cause brain lesions (Rausch and Belyea 2006). The bacteria also produce 

an analog that inhibits certain enzymes involved in energy metabolism (Kung et al. 1998). 

Mycotoxins may also be concentrated in DDGS. Mycotoxins are poisons produced by some 

fungi (e.g., Aspergillus, Fusarium, Penicillium). The growth of fungi and the production of 

mycotoxins can be associated with stressed plants in the field (e.g., drought, pest damage) or 
21

poor storage after harvest (Whitlow and Hagler 2005). During ethanol processing, mycotoxins 

are not destroyed; the toxins are concentrated three-fold during ethanol processing, resulting in 

DDGS that may contain significantly increased levels of mycotoxins compared to corn grain for 

feed (Garcia et al. 2008). 

One of the mycotoxin metabolites present in corn, and potentially present in the resultant DDGS, 

aflatoxin M1, may be a concern to human health. If M1 is present in corn feed or DDGS and fed 

to dairy cattle, M1 can be passed in milk for human consumption (Garcia et al. 2008). M1, a 

metabolite Aflatoxin B1, is considered a potential carcinogenic compound for humans. Because 

of the human health concerns surrounding aflatoxins, aflatoxin is regulated by the FDA at the 

action level. Action levels for poisonous or deleterious substances are established by the FDA to 

control levels of contaminants in human food and animal feed. These action levels represent 

limits at or above which FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market (FDA 

2000).
22

III. Alternatives

This EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of a proposal to grant nonregulated 

status to Event 3272 corn. In order for Event 3272 corn to be granted nonregulated status, it 

must be found to be unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. The analysis provided in the plant pest 

risk assessment (USDA-APHIS 2009) demonstrates that Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a 

plant pest risk and therefore should no longer be subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR 

part 340.

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

in part." Because APHIS has found that Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, 

there is no regulatory requirement for considering whether to approve the petition in part. The 

petitioner has not requested APHIS to consider approving a partial deregulation, and the petition 

for Event 3272 corn only requested APHIS to grant nonregulated status to one corn line, so this 

type of “in part” approval will not be considered. Therefore, there are two alternatives that will 

be considered in this EA: (1) no action and (2) grant nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn, “in 

whole.”

A. No Action: Continuation as a Regulated Article

Under the "no action" alternative, APHIS would deny the petition to grant nonregulated status to 

Event 3272 corn. Event 3272 corn would continue to be subject to regulation pursuant to 7 CFR 

part 340. The company would have to continue to request permits and notifications for new 

introductions of Event 3272 corn plants. Permit conditions would be specified by APHIS. 

These conditions would be designed to confine Event 3272 corn. The size of planting would be 

limited to help maintain confinement. In addition, the number of permits granted would be 

limited by agency resources, both in terms of the number of permits which could be reviewed by 

APHIS, and in APHIS’ ability to inspect the field trials and enforce compliance with regulations.

As such, it would be difficult for the company to commercialize Event 3272 corn under the 

permit or notification process. This alternative is not the preferred alternative because APHIS 

has concluded through a plant pest risk assessment (USDA-APHIS 2009) that Event 3272 corn 

does not pose a plant pest risk. Choosing this alternative would not be consistent with the 

purpose and need of APHIS to allow for the safe development and use of GE organisms given 

that Event 3272 corn does not pose a plant pest risk.

B. Preferred Alternative: Determination that Event 3272 Corn Plants 

are No Longer Regulated Articles, in Whole

Under this alternative, Event 3272 corn would no longer be a regulated article under the 

regulations at 7 CFR part 340. Event 3272 corn should be granted nonregulated status because 

APHIS has concluded that this GE organism does not pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS 

2009). Permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS would no longer be required for 

introductions of Event 3272 corn, or progeny derived from these events. This alternative best 

meets the purpose and need for agency action. The agency’s need is to make a decision on the 

petition that is consistent with the regulatory requirements in 7 CFR part 340. Granting 

nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn is consistent with the plant pest provisions of the PPA, 
23

the regulations codified in 7 CFR part 340, and the biotechnology regulatory policies in the 

Coordinated Framework. 

C. Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration

APHIS assembled a comprehensive list of alternatives that might be implemented in the decision 

process for Event 3272 corn. The agency individually evaluated each alternative on the basis of 

consistency with the current regulations, environmental safety, efficacy, and practicality to 

identify which alternatives would be further considered during the decision process. Based on 

this evaluation, APHIS rejected several alternatives. In the interest of transparency, these 

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

Prohibit any Event 3272 corn from being released.

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

marketplace, APHIS considered prohibiting the release Event 3272 corn, including denying 

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

appropriate given that APHIS has concluded that Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk (USDA-APHIS 2009). 

The Secretary of Agriculture is directed, through APHIS, to facilitate—

“... the smooth movement of enterable plants, plant products, biological control organisms, 

or other articles into, out of, or within the United States... (and to facilitate) exports, 

imports, and interstate commerce in agricultural products and other commodities that pose 

a risk of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds in ways that will reduce, to the extent 

practicable, as determined by the Secretary, the risk of dissemination of plant pests or 

noxious weeds... § 402(3)(5).”

The question as to how to balance this facilitation with the protection of U.S. agriculture is 

unequivocally answered by the Plant Protection Act, which states that—

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

under (the Plant Protection Act) shall be based on sound science... § 402(4).

A risk-management process based on sound science must, therefore, consider a growing body of 

scientific evidence documenting the safe use of GE organisms in U.S. agriculture, and in the rest 

of the world, to determine whether their use poses any unacceptable risks. Because Congress has 

mandated a science-based approach in APHIS regulations and because there is no basis in 

science for banning the release of Event 3272 corn, a blanket prohibition of the release of Event 

3272 corn would contravene congressional intent and must be rejected.

Isolation distance between Event 3272 corn and non-GE corn production and geographic 

restrictions

In response to public concerns regarding possible gene movement between GE and non-GE 

plants, APHIS considered requiring an isolation distance greater than 660 feet separating Event 

3272 corn from non-GE corn production. However, because Event 3272 corn does not pose a 

plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS 2009), an alternative based on requiring isolation distances was 

viewed as inconsistent with the current regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 
24

APHIS also considered geographically restricting the production of Event 3272 corn based on 

production of non-GE corn in organic production systems or production systems for GEsensitive markets in response to public concerns regarding possible gene movement between 

GE and non-GE plants. However, as presented in APHIS’ plant pest risk assessment for Event 

3272 corn, there are no geographic differences associated with any identifiable plant pest risks 

for Event 3272 corn (USDA-APHIS 2009). This alternative was rejected and not analyzed in 

detail because APHIS has concluded that Event 3272 corn does not pose a plant pest risk, and 

will not exhibit a greater plant pest risk in any geographically restricted area. Therefore, such 

an alternative would not be consistent with APHIS’ regulatory authority and the biotechnology 

regulatory policies embodied in the Coordinated Framework. 

Based on the foregoing, the imposition of isolation distances or geographic restrictions would not 

meet APHIS’ purpose and need to act on the petition in accordance with its regulatory authorities. 

Nevertheless, APHIS is not expecting significant effects. However, individuals might choose on 

their own to geographically isolate their non-GE corn productions systems from Event 3272 

corn, or to use isolation distances and other management practices to minimize gene movement 

between corn fields. Information to assist growers in making informed management decisions 

for Event 3272 is available from Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA 

2004) and Syngenta (see Appendix D and Appendix G in the EA). 

Requirement of testing for Event 3272 corn

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

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

production systems. However, there are no nationally-established regulations involving testing 

or limits of GE material in non-GE systems. Such a requirement would be both novel and 

extremely difficult to implement and maintain. Additionally, because Event 3272 corn does not

pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS 2009), the imposition of any type of testing requirements is 

inconsistent with APHIS’ regulatory policies or the biotechnology regulatory policies embodied 

in the Coordinated Framework. Therefore, the requirement of testing for Event 3272 corn would 

not meet APHIS’ purpose and need to act on the petition in accordance with its regulatory 

authorities.

D. Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2, below, briefly summarizes the results for each of the issues raised in the Environmental 

Consequences (Section IV) by each of the alternatives described in the Alternatives section 

(Section III). 

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives

Attribute/Measure Outcome if Alternative A

No Action is Chose

Outcome if Alternative B

Deregulation is Chosen

Meets Purpose and Need 

and Objectives

No Yes

Is there a plant pest risk? No (USDA-APHIS 2009) No (USDA-APHIS 2009)

Management Practices

Corn Production No change in U.S. corn 

acreage. No change in use of 

No change in U.S. corn 

acreage. No change in use of 
25

Attribute/Measure Outcome if Alternative A

No Action is Chose

Outcome if Alternative B

Deregulation is Chosen

GE or non-GE corn varieties 

during corn production. No 

change in corn acreage for 

ethanol production.

GE or non-GE corn varieties 

during corn production. U.S.

corn acreage for ethanol 

production may decrease due 

to increased ethanol efficiency 

of Event 3272 corn.

Cropping Practices No change in cropping 

practices in GE and non-GE 

farming systems.

No change in cropping 

practices for in GE and nonGE farming systems.

Pesticide Use No change in pesticide use in 

GE and non-GE farming 

systems.

No change in pesticide use in 

GE and non-GE farming 

systems.

Specialty Corn Uses and 

Processing

Economic effects of 

misdirected specialty corn 

varieties may cause effects in 

food processing, but effects 

would not be caused by Event 

3272 corn. 

Economic effects of 

misdirected specialty corn 

varieties may cause effects in 

food processing, and effects 

may be caused by Event 3272 

corn. The magnitude of the 

consequences of the effects 

has not been studied.

Ethanol Production 2.8 gallons/bushel if no 

ethanol plants are converted 

for Event 3272 corn use.

2.8 gallons/bushel + 2% or 

greater increase when ethanol 

plants are converted for Event 

3272 corn use.

Human and Animal Health

Public Health: Risk to Human 

Health

Minimal risk due to corn 

consumption.

Minimal risk due to Event 

3272 corn consumption.

Public Health: Risk to Worker 

Safety

Minimal risk due to corn 

production; Higher risk in 

ethanol production.

Minimal risk due to Event 

3272 corn production; 

Decreased risk in Event 3272 

converted ethanol facilities.

Animal Feed: DDGS Minimal risk due to the use of 

corn in DDGS.

Minimal risk due to the use of 

Event 3272 corn in DDGS.

Environment

Gene Movement Low risk of gene flow from 

GE corn to non-GE corn. No 

risk of gene flow from GE 

corn to native plants.

Low risk of gene flow from 

GE corn to non-GE corn. No 

risk of gene flow from Event 

3272 corn to native plants.

Water use Water is required for 

production of GE and non-GE 

corn and for ethanol 

production.

The same amount of water 

used to grow corn under the 

No Action alternative is 

needed to grow Event 3272 

corn. Less water is required 

for ethanol facilities converted 

for Event 3272 corn use. 
26

Attribute/Measure Outcome if Alternative A

No Action is Chose

Outcome if Alternative B

Deregulation is Chosen

Animals Minimal risk due to corn 

consumption.

Minimal risk due to Event 

3272 corn consumption.

Plants Weeds and other plants inhabit 

agricultural areas surrounding 

corn production and will be 

managed.

The same amount of weed and 

plant management used to 

grow corn under the No 

Action alternative will occur 

in Event 3272 corn 

production. 

Biological Diversity Animals will inhabit 

agricultural areas surrounding 

corn production and will be 

managed.

The same amount of animal 

management used to grow 

corn under the No Action 

alternative will occur in Event 

3272 corn production.

Soil biology Soil modification may occur 

during corn production.

The same amount of soil 

modification used to grow 

corn under the No Action 

alternative may occur during 

Event 3272 corn production.

CRP Acreage Corn acres may be enrolled or 

un-enrolled in CRP.

The same amount of corn 

acres enrolled in CRP under 

the No Action alternative will 

be enrolled under this 

alternative. Fewer corn acres 

may be un-enrolled in CRP.

Other Regulatory Approvals for Event 3272 Corn

United States FDA consultation complete. No requirement for EPA review

Other Countries Canada, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Japan, 

Taiwan, and Russia

(Table 1)

Compliance of Granting Nonregulated Status to Event 3272 Corn with Other Laws

Endangered Species Act, 

Clean Water Act, Clean Air 

Act, Executive Orders

Fully compliant
27

IV. Environmental Consequences

Potential environmental impacts from the “no action” alternative and the “preferred” alternative 

for Event 3272 corn are described in detail throughout this section. A cumulative effects analysis 

is also included for each environmental issue. Certain aspects of this product and its cultivation 

would be no different between the alternatives; those are described below. 

Methodology and Assumptions

The environmental effects analysis is greatly dependent on assumptions used for estimating 

effects. The following are key underlying assumptions used to estimate effects for each

alternative.

SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Event 3272 corn is genetically engineered to produce a microbial enzyme that facilitates ethanol 

production and, based upon information provided by Syngenta, ethanol production is the 

intended use of Event 3272 corn. Therefore, APHIS will primarily focus its environmental 

analysis on those geographic areas that produce corn and are near corn ethanol plants either 

currently in production or under construction.

Due to the properties of Event 3272 corn, and the contractual obligations between growers and 

ethanol facilities, ethanol plant managers must make a manufacturing decision to use Event 3272 

corn in their facility. Event 3272 corn cannot be used routinely in any and all ethanol plants. 

The inputs used for ethanol production are specific to each ethanol plant and margins of 

efficiency and efficacy are tied directly to characteristics of the locally grown corn (e.g., 

moisture content) and the specific parameters of other inputs used in a particular facility. 

Although the environmental analysis will include areas of corn production surrounding any corn 

ethanol plant, the scope of the affected environment is substantially smaller in reality and limited 

to only those corn production areas that surround an Event 3272-specific ethanol plant. 

Currently there is only one ethanol plant in operation prepared to accept Event 3272 corn, and 

two other ethanol plants may become operational in 2011 if nonregulated status is granted, out of 

a total of 194 corn ethanol plants.

To determine areas of corn production, APHIS used data from the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) 2002 Census of Agriculture to determine where corn is produced in 

the United States (www.nass.usda.gov, accessed 6/5/2008). NASS has since published the 2007 

Census of Agriculture (www.nass.usda.gov, accessed 2/16/2010) but this information has not 

changed the findings that were determined with the 2002 data. 

The list of 49 states that produce corn grain is found in Table 3, according to the 2002 and 2007 

Censuses of Agriculture. As of February 2011, there are at least 194 operational corn ethanol 

plants with 7 plants under construction (www.ethanolrfa.org). The states that have operational 

ethanol plants or are constructing plants that will use corn as the input are also listed in Table 3. 

Table 3. States that grow corn according to the 2002 and 2007 Censuses of Agriculture, and 

whether the state also has an active corn ethanol facility or one under construction (according to 
28

February 2011 data from www.ethanolrfa.org). The states that grow corn and have an existing 

corn ethanol facility or one under construction will be included in the analysis for the 

environmental effects for Event 3272 corn.

Corn Growing State Corn Ethanol Facility? Corn Growing State Corn Ethanol Facility?

Alabama No Nebraska Yes

Arizona Yes Nevada No

Arkansas No New Hampshire No

California Yes New Jersey No

Colorado Yes New Mexico Yes

Connecticut No New York Yes

Delaware No North Carolina Yes

Florida No North Dakota Yes

Georgia Yes Ohio Yes

Hawaii No Oklahoma No

Idaho Yes Oregon Yes

Illinois Yes Pennsylvania Yes

Indiana Yes Rhode Island No

Iowa Yes South Carolina No

Kansas Yes South Dakota Yes

Kentucky Yes Tennessee Yes

Louisiana No Texas Yes

Maine No Utah No

Maryland No Vermont No

Massachusetts No Virginia Yes

Michigan Yes Washington No

Minnesota Yes West Virginia No

Mississippi Yes Wisconsin Yes

Missouri Yes Wyoming Yes

Montana No

The corn-growing counties within the 28 states that have a corn ethanol plant or one under 

construction are listed in Appendix B. These 2360 counties in 28 states are be included in the 

environmental effects analysis for the alternatives, even though the entirety of this area will not 

include Event 3272 corn or Event 3272 corn-specific ethanol facilities. 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

One of APHIS’ missions is to improve American agricultural productivity. Best management 

practices, such as planting dates, seeding rates, and harvest times are commonly accepted, 

practical ways to grow corn, regardless if the corn farmer is using conventional systems, organic 

practices, or using genetically engineered varieties. These well-established, widely-practiced 

means to produce corn can be obtained through local Cooperative Extension Service offices and 

their respective websites. (A summary website can be found at 

www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/index.cfm, accessed 4/24/2008). 

SPECIALTY CORN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

It is Syngenta’s intention that Event 3272 corn will be marketed and produced in a manner 

similar to other value-added, specialty corn products, such as popcorn, waxy corn, high oil corn, 
29

high protein and modified protein corn, sweet corn, higher fermentable corn, and high amylase 

corn (USGC 2006). As discussed above in the Affected Environment section, these value-added 

products are typically produced with identity preservation systems that include contracts between 

all handlers of the grain (seed suppliers, farmers, handlers, and processors), traceability, product 

tracking, process verification, and separate channeling to minimize commingling.

Similar to other specialty corn varieties, Event 3272 corn will require a level of control to 

preserve identity and avoid inadvertent mixing with other corn products. This identity 

preservation will include the use of a ‘closed-loop’ system. The closed-loop system provides 

more control over the specialty crop to better protect its value and to not interfere with other corn 

varieties. Closed-loop production systems involve rigorous controls to maintain the identity of 

the crop, tight chain of custody of the crop as it moves through the stages of production (seed, 

planting, harvesting, and transportation to end user) and contractual requirements of each party 

in the system.

If Event 3272 corn will be commercialized, Syngenta will have contracts and other control 

mechanisms in place to establish a ‘closed-loop’ system for Event 3272 corn. This closed-loop 

system includes three principle points of contact; the producer of Event 3272 corn (Syngenta), 

the grower of Event 3272 corn, and the end-user of Event 3272 corn, the ethanol plant. 

According to Syngenta (see Appendix G), each point of contact has specific roles and 

responsibilities:

“Syngenta [will] (stewardship roles and responsibilities):

• license the use of Event 3272 corn product to growers;

• sell Event 3272 corn hybrids only to licensed growers with a valid contract with 

an ethanol plant or an approved third party grain company that supplies corn 

amylase to the ethanol plant;

● ensure that grain contract includes stewardship agreement;

• provide incentive to grower for producing and delivery of Event 3272 corn 

product;

• provide stewardship guide to producers and handlers on the cultivation and 

handling of the Event 3272 corn product;

• provide specific procedures for the handling of any excess grain;

• ensure the domestic consumption of DDGS prior to export market approvals;

• make available appropriate detection methods; and,

• develop and implement a communication program.

Grower [will] (stewardship roles and responsibilities):

• execute delivery contract with ethanol plant;

• execute stewardship contract with Syngenta;

• follow Syngenta stewardship guide on cultivation; and,

• follow Syngenta requirement to divert excess grain to appropriate use.
30

Ethanol Plant (stewardship roles and responsibilities):

• contract with growers to supply Event 3272 corn product; and,

• ensure domestic consumption of DDGS prior to export market approvals;

These stewardship roles and responsibilities in concert with the contract relationships 

between the entities in the closed-loop system and the backstop mechanisms minimize 

the risk of inadvertent delivery of Event 3272 corn and commingling.”

According to Syngenta (see Appendix G), the system for Event 3272 corn will include contracts 

for Event 3272 corn grown in surrounding areas of an Event 3272 corn-contracted ethanol 

facility. Due to economic considerations, trucks dominate the local transportation of corn to 

ethanol facilities, limiting the geographic area for growing Event 3272 corn to approximately a 

50-mile radius (Denicoff 2007). The farther corn is from the ethanol plant, the greater the 

transportation costs to move Event 3272 corn to the ethanol facility. As a result, there is a limit 

to the area around the ethanol facility that is economically feasible to effectively use Event 3272 

corn. 

The ethanol plant will contract either directly with Event 3272 corn growers in their geographic 

region or indirectly through grain suppliers. The contracts for growers will dictate the delivery 

location (ethanol plant or storage site within a specified radius of the field), a delivery date, and 

amount to be delivered. Syngenta has stated that hybrids with Event 3272 will only be available 

to growers with a valid contract, and who agree to the Syngenta Stewardship Agreement (see 

Appendix G).

Part of the Stewardship Agreement is the requirement that growers include 12 rows of non-Event 

3272 corn as a pollen trap to reduce the amount of Event 3272 pollen that may leave the corn 

field. Syngenta has provided an analysis (Appendix D) that analyzes the effect of using border 

rows on the minimizing corn pollen leaving an Event 3272 corn field. Syngenta’s analysis 

suggests that more than 99.9% of all corn pollen is captured when 12 border rows of non-Event 

3272 corn plants are used and flowers are in synchrony with the Event 3272 corn field. This 

analysis is consistent with other gene flow and pollen flow studies in the scientific literature

(Jarosz et al. 2003, Jemison and Veyda 2001, Ma 2005, Ma et al. 2004, and Westgate et al. 

2003). 

PRODUCTION PRACTICES

APHIS also recognizes that producers of non-GE corn, particularly producers who sell their 

products to markets sensitive to genetically engineered traits (e.g. organic or some export 

markets) can be reasonably assumed to be using practices on their farm to protect their crop from 

unwanted substances and maintain their price premium. For example, the National Organic 

Program (NOP) has recognized the practicality of protecting organically-produced crops, and the 

investment farmers put into their production practices, by requiring that organic production plans 

include methods to protect organically-produced crops.

Organic crops must be protected from contamination by prohibited 

substances used on adjoining lands (for example, drifting pesticides, 
31

fertilizer-laden runoff water, and pollen drift from genetically engineered...) 

(NCAT 2003).

Typically, more than one method is used under organic practices to prevent unwanted material 

from entering their fields including: isolation of the farm, physical barriers or buffer zones 

between organic production and non-organic production, as well as formal communications 

between neighboring farms (NCAT 2003). The organic plan used as the basis for organic 

certification should include a description of practices used to prevent or reduce the likelihood of 

unwanted substances, like GE pollen or seed, at each step in the farming operation, such as

planting, harvesting, storing and transporting the crop (Riddle 2004, Krueger 2007, Kuepper et 

al. 2007). Organic plans should also include provisions describing how the risk of GE pollen or 

seed co-mingling will be monitored (Kuepper et al. 2007). Farmers using organic methods are 

requested to let neighboring farmers know that they are using organic production practices and 

request that the neighbors also help the organic farmer reduce contamination events (NCAT 

2003, Krueger 2007). Therefore, commonly used production practices for corn, and the practical 

methods typically used by corn farmers using organic methods to protect their crop and 

maximize their profits and price premiums granted to corn under organic production, currently 

provide many measures that greatly reduce the likelihood of accidental gene flow between Event 

3272 corn and non-GE corn fields. APHIS will use the assumption that farmers are already 

using, or have the ability to use, these common, reasonable practices as its baseline for the 

analyses of the following alternatives below. Recommended organic production practices for 

field corn are also readily available (Kuepper 2002). 

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS

The environmental consequences of the different alternatives described above have been

analyzed under the assumption that farmers who produce conventional corn, Event 3272 corn, or 

produce corn using organic methods, are using reasonable, commonly accepted best management 

practices for their chosen system and varieties during agricultural corn production. However, 

APHIS recognizes that not all farmers follow these best management practices for corn. The 

analyses of the environmental effects also include the assumption that some farmers do not 

follow these best management practices.

OTHER INFORMATION

Syngenta provided APHIS a series of reports detailing the potential benefits and impacts of 

Event 3272 corn in terms of ethanol production and byproducts, corn processing, and pollen 

movement in corn. These are referenced in the EA and the CBI-deleted versions are found as 

Appendices to this EA.

Corn Production

GE and non-GE corn varieties are continually under development. Currently, 86% of the total 

corn acres planted in 2008 are GE corn varieties (USDA-NASS 2010b), and about 40% of the 

total corn production in 2010 was used for ethanol production (USDA ERS 2011). In 2010, 

growers harvested 81 million acres for grain, which is a slight increase from the 79.6 million 

acres harvested in 2009. 
32

FARMING WITH GE AND NON-GE VARIETIES

Acreage and Areas of Corn Production

No Action: Acreage and Areas of Corn Production

The amount of GE corn planted in conventional systems in the U.S. is increasing. Of the total 

corn acres planted in 2010, 86% were GE corn varieties (USDA-NASS 2010b) up from 73% in 

2007 (USDA-NASS 2007a), and 61% in 2006 (USDA-NASS 2006). Conventional production 

practices that use GE varieties will likely continue to increase without granting nonregulated 

status to Event 3272 under the “no action” alternative, based on current acreage trends. 

Currently available seed for conventional and GE varieties will remain the same under the “no 

action” alternative, except Event 3272 corn variety will be unavailable. Corn is currently 

produced in 49 states (all states but Alaska according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture), and 

under the “no action” alternative, this range of production will be unchanged.

GE corn has been in production since the mid-1990’s, and in 2010 accounted for 86% of the 

acres of corn planted (USDA-NASS 2010). During this time, corn production for GE-sensitive 

markets has increased; for example organic corn production increased 35% between 2001 and 

2005 (USGC 2006), at the same time that corn acreage using GE varieties increased from 26% of 

corn acreage to 52% of corn acreage (USDA-NASS 2001, 2005). The amount of GE corn 

planted for conventional corn production and amount of corn planted for organic production 

systems in the U.S. are increasing, and both production practices will likely continue to increase 

without granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 under the “no action” alternative. 

Management practices currently in used for GE and non-GE corn will remain in place and used 

by farmers of GE varieties and those producing corn for GE-sensitive markets. Currently 

available seed for conventional and GE corn varieties, and those corn varieties that are developed 

for organic production, will remain the same under the “no action” alternative. 

Preferred Alternative: Acreage and Areas of Corn Production

In 2008, GE corn production was planted on 80% of all corn acres currently in production in the 

US, and the use of GE corn has been increasing over the last 3 years (USDA-NASS 2006, 2007a, 

2008a, 2010b). Conventional and GE corn production occurs on land that is dedicated to crop 

production. Most corn is planted in fields that have been in crop production for years. Granting 

nonregulated status of Event 3272 corn under the “preferred” alternative is not expected to 

significantly alter the range of corn cultivation as the new GE trait (alpha-amylase) does not 

change the growth habits compared to conventional varieties (USDA-APHIS 2009). Event 3272 

corn will be marketed for use in ethanol production, and this corn variety will be limited to 

production areas that surround ethanol production facilities (see Appendix G). Currently, there 

are 28 states that have corn-based ethanol production facilities, including states with facilities 

under construction (see Table 3). This corn variety will likely be introduced to areas where corn 

is currently grown for ethanol production as a replacement product to other varieties 

(conventional and GE) already available in the market today and used for ethanol production.

Further, the acreage for Event 3272 corn is limited to areas surrounding ethanol facilities that 

have been contracted to accept Event 3272 corn. As a result, under the preferred alternative, 

granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn would not increase the demand for corn 

production, or alone cause an increase in overall GE corn acreage.
33

Event 3272 corn has the potential to decrease overall corn conventional (non-organic) acreage 

needed to meet the biofuel amounts specified in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007. APHIS has analyzed the projections made for ethanol 

production efficiency submitted by Syngenta (Appendix C). Due to the changes in ethanol 

processing when using Event 3272 corn, Syngenta projects a 2% or greater increase in 

efficiency, resulting in more ethanol generated per unit grain than current ethanol processes 

using microbial alpha-amylase. If Event 3272 corn does result in greater efficiency during 

ethanol production, fewer acres of corn production may be required to meet the biofuel levels 

mandated by Congress.

Granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn has the potential to result in a decrease in 

acreage devoted to corn produced for ethanol production due to a projected 2% or greater 

increase in ethanol efficiency – fewer bushels of corn may be needed to meet the requirements of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Corn produced using organic methods has been increasing at approximately 30% a year (USGC 

2006), even though there are no national requirements that GE corn varieties currently in 

production use mandated techniques for isolation between fields containing GE corn and those 

fields using organic production practices. In the Methodology and Assumptions section above, 

the discussion contains information related to the requirements for farmers using organic 

production methods under the National Organic Program. Conventional farmers growing GE 

varieties typically use traditional production practices, and have no requirements related to 

isolating pollen movement between their fields and their neighbor’s field. Without any 

requirements in place, the production of corn using organic methods is continuing to increase.

In agricultural systems, growers may choose to grow GE or non-GE corn, and obtain price 

premiums for growing varieties of corn for particular markets (e.g., using organic methods for 

corn production or producing a specialty corn variety for particular processing needs). For 

example, in 2008, conventional field corn averaged $3.90/bushel (USDA-NASS, 2009b), 

whereas organic corn averaged $7.08/bushel (USDA-NASS 2010). USDA asserts that 

agricultural practices that use conventional means, organic production systems, or genetically 

engineered varieties can all provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. 

As discussed in Section II and below under the section for “Gene Movement,” gene flow into 

and out of these specialized corn production systems has been managed using various types of 

buffer zones or isolation practices, such as differences in timing of planting (which results in 

differences in flowering and removes the ability to pollinate neighboring crops) or making sure 

fields are distance from other compatible crops (such as using isolation distances). 

As discussed in the Methodology and Assumption methods, Syngenta has included some 

measures in their Stewardship Agreement that minimize pollen movement outside corn fields 

containing Event 3272 corn (see Gene Movement section below for further discussion and 

Appendix D). If corn growers using Event 3272 corn follow the measures, APHIS has 

determined that these additional measures to minimize pollen flow would decrease the likelihood 

of GE pollen movement into those corn fields that are growing non-GE corn (see Gene 

Movement section below for further discussion and Appendix D). However, even if growers of 

Event 3272 corn failed to use the mandated isolation techniques in the Stewardship Agreement, 

there is no indication that any current pollen flow from GE corn to non-GE corn has dampened 
34

the organic production of corn. Currently, the use of GE corn varieties and the use of organic 

corn production systems are both increasing due to market demands, and these markets will 

likely continue to increase under the “preferred” alternative.

Under the “no action” alternative and under the “preferred” alternative, granting nonregulated 

status to Event 3272 corn will not change the market demands for GE corn or corn grown for 

GE-sensitive markets. Granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn will add another GE 

corn variety to the market. However, adding GE varieties to the market is not related to the 

ability of organic production systems and other GE-sensitive markets to maintain their market 

share. Between 2001 and 2005, although 5 GE corn varieties were granted nonregulated status, 

the acreage associated with the organic production of corn rose 35% (USGC 2006). 

Cumulative Effects: Acreage and Areas of Corn Production

Cumulative effects on U.S. acreage and U.S. areas of corn production due to granting 

nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn are unlikely. Neither the no action alternative nor 

granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn will directly cause an increase in agricultural 

acreage devoted to corn production, or those corn acres devoted to GE or non-GE corn 

cultivation. Event 3272 corn will also not change cultivation areas for corn production in the 

U.S. Currently 86% of all corn acreages are GE corn (USDA NASS 2010), and Event 3272 corn 

is not expected to increase the acreage of GE corn varieties in the U.S. There are no foreseeable 

changes to the availability of GE and non-GE corn varieties on the market under either 

alternative.

Cropping practices

Crop Rotation

No Action: Crop Rotation 

The current economics of corn production in GE and non-GE systems are driving the change or 

perceived change in crop rotation practices. Growers make choices to plant certain corn varieties 

and use certain crop rotation practices based on factors such as yield, weed and disease 

pressures, cost of seed and other inputs, technology fees, human safety, potential for crop injury, 

and ease and flexibility of the production system (Olson and Sander 1988, Giannessi 2005). 

Therefore, when taking into account these factors, growers will ultimately base their choice on 

individual wants and needs. 

As the demand for ethanol production and corn prices have increased, the frequency of corn-tocorn crop rotations conventional production systems has also increased in areas that support 

ethanol production (Hart 2006, Stockton et al. 2007). The average field corn prices have 

increased from $2.00/bushel in 2005 (USDA-NASS 2007b), to $3.04/bushel in 2006, and 

$4.00/bushel in 2007 (USDA-NASS 2008b). As of the end of 2010, the price for a bushel of 

corn is calculated at between $4.82 and $5.37 (USDA-NASS 2011). These prices are driven by 

demand for corn products in ethanol and for feed. Under the “no action” alternative, the demand 

and price increases in GE and non-GE corn will continue to increase depending on the market for 

field corn, and corn-to-corn rotations will continue to be used by farmers if this cropping practice 

meets the economic and marketing strategy for the particular farmer. 
35

Preferred Alternative: Crop Rotation

As stated above, the current economics of corn production are driving the change or perceived 

change in crop rotation practices. Granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn is unlikely to 

change the entire pricing scheme of corn commodities in the U.S. Prices will continue to be set 

by market demand, without regard to the number or type of corn varieties available on the 

market. Event 3272 corn is unlikely to affect a farmer’s decision to either stop using a corn-tocorn rotation, or to increase the overall use of corn-to-corn rotation as a cropping strategy with 

the U.S. farming community. 

Cumulative Effects: Crop Rotation

Under the “no action” alternative, the cumulative effects of using crop-to-crop rotation in GE 

and non-GE corn production systems could be a cumulative increase level in corn pests found in 

corn fields or a cumulative increase in fertilizer use due to continuing use of corn crops (instead 

of rotating in a nitrogen-fixing crop such as alfalfa or soybean) (Sawyer 2007). (Synthetic 

fertilizers are not used in corn production systems using organic methods.) Granting 

nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn will result in similar cumulative effects as those found 

under the “no action” alternative, because the use of corn-to-corn rotation is based on economic 

decisions by the farmer and is not dependent on the corn varieties (GE or conventional) available 

on the market.

Tillage

No Action: Tillage

The use of tillage and the removal of soil residue are considered agriculture practices that 

accentuate loss of soil organic carbon (Lal and Bruce 1999). As described in Section II, this loss 

has negative impacts on the atmosphere and increases soil erosion, among others. Under the “no 

action” alternative, the use of tillage methods in U.S. agricultural production of corn (in GE, 

conventional or organic production systems) will remain unchanged. 

Preferred Alternative: Tillage

Event 3272 corn does not change cultivation practices, including tillage, for corn production. 

Agronomic practices used during the production of corn for ethanol use is the same as the 

production of corn for grain. Granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn will not change 

the loss of soil organic carbon due to tillage in corn production systems with overall impacts 

similar to the No Action alternative.

Cumulative Effects: Tillage

The cumulative effects of tillage include removal of soil residues over time (Lal and Bruce 1999, 

Triplett and Dick 2008), and will continue independent of the status of Event 3272 corn. Event 

3272 corn will not change the amount of corn acreage tilled, because it will not change acreage 

devoted to corn production in the U.S. Event 3272 corn will not change the management of corn 

fields because it will require the same agronomic practices as other conventional corn varieties.

Pesticide Use

No Action: Pesticide Use

Under the “no action” alternative, corn production, and pesticide use in corn, will remain as it is 

practiced today by the farming community. Growers make choices to use certain pesticides 

based on weed and disease pressures, cost of seed and other inputs, technology fees, human 
36

safety, potential for crop injury, and ease and flexibility of the system (Olson and Sander 1988, 

Giannessi 2005). Therefore, when taking into account these factors, growers will ultimately base 

their choice on individual wants and needs. As an example of the pesticides used during the 

production of field corn, the Pesticide Action Network has an online database, including a 

detailed description of all the pesticides used in corn agriculture in California (Kegley et al. 

2008). It lists the top 50 pesticides (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) used in California 

corn production. Any effects due to pesticide use in the agricultural production of corn will 

remain the same under the “no action” alternative. The no action alternative will also not change 

the types of pesticides used in organic production of corn (see http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl for a list of approved synthetic pesticides for 

use in organic production).

Preferred Alternative: Pesticide Use

Event 3272 corn production uses the same agricultural inputs (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers) as corn 

currently grown for the ethanol production market. Event 3272 corn, and the alpha-amylase 

produced by Event 3272 corn has no effect on the types of pesticides that will be used in corn 

production. Granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn will not have any effect on the 

pesticides used in the production of corn in the U.S., compared to the “no action” alternative.

Cumulative Effects: Pesticide Use

The baseline effects of pesticides, and levels applied during the agricultural production of corn in 

GE, conventional, and organic systems will not change due to granting nonregulated status of 

Event 3272 corn. Granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn does not cause additional or 

synergistic effects of pesticide use because there is no change in pesticide use or effects 

compared to the current conventional production of corn, and Event 3272 corn will not change 

the amount of pesticides used in organic production of corn.

Specialty Corn Uses and Processing

Specialty corn, such as waxy corn, white corn, blue corn, high amylose corn, and organic corn, 

comprises 8% of the U.S. market (USGC 2006). Event 3272 corn is considered a specialty, 

value-added corn that will be grown for use in ethanol facilities. Because of the compositional 

differences of Event 3272 corn that increase the efficiency of ethanol production, and because 

Event 3272 corn is different in amylase content than other corn varieties, Event 3272 corn will 

be grown in a closed loop system, using contractual arrangements between growers and ethanol 

facilities to ensure Event 3272 corn only enters the ethanol production stream. 

No Action: Specialty Corn Uses and Processing

Under the no action alternative, Event 3272 corn will remain a regulated article, and will not be 

grown without a permit or notification from APHIS. Compositional differences between Event 

3272 corn and other specialty corn will remain, and the chance for misdirection of Event 3272 

corn into other corn processing facilities will remain low.

Preferred Alternative: Specialty Corn Uses and Processing

Under the preferred alternative, Event 3272 will be granted nonregulated status and allowed to 

be grown without restrictions. However, as Event 3272 corn is a specialty corn variety, the

closed-loop system will be used extensively to maintain the identity and value of the product for 

the grower, who is obtaining a price premium from the ethanol producer, and the ethanol 
37

producer, who is paying the premium. The closed-loop system will also help to prevent the 

misdirection of Event 3272 to unintended downstream processing facilities. There is no benefit 

to either party if Event 3272 corn is mistakenly routed. 

However, there is still the potential for misdirection of Event 3272 corn in the transportation 

stream. Because Event 3272 corn has successfully completed the food and feed consultation 

process with FDA (Appendix H), there are no human health concerns if Event 3272 corn enters 

the food supply (see section on Public Health below for more discussion). Nonetheless, because 

of the thermostable properties of the alpha-amylase present in Event 3272 corn, there may be 

undesirable effects in certain types of processed products, similar to what may happen if other 

types of specialty corn products are misdirected into production streams for which they were not 

intended. 

For example, food processes that use alkaline cooking, such as processes that produce masa 

tortillas and corn-based snack foods, may be affected through changes in dough-handling or 

darkened chip color, if Event 3272 corn is mistakenly included in the process (Appendices F-H). 

The masa industry, like other corn grain-handling industries that depend on the specific 

properties of a corn variety, uses strict grain sourcing programs. Only an estimated 4% of the 

corn grain used for masa production is from the open market rather than through direct contracts 

with a grower (Appendix G). Corn hybrids used for masa production are specifically developed 

with improved alkaline-cooking properties, and premiums are paid for growing, delivering, and

meeting and maintaining the purity and quality standards of corn for masa production (Appendix 

G), similar to how other specialty corn grain are handled. Both Event 3272 corn and corn 

hybrids for masa production are grown under strong stewardship programs, similar to other corn 

production processes that depend on specific and consistent grain qualities.

In the unlikely event that Event 3272 corn were to enter a masa production facility (or another 

corn grain processing facility), the mixing of a truck-load of Event 3272 corn into holding bin of 

corn for masa production would result in significant dilution (see Appendix F and Appendix G 

for scenario development). Further dilution is also possible if the truck-load of Event 3272 corn 

enters a local grain elevator, which would reduce the effects that Event 3272 corn would have on 

masa production (or the production of other corn grain derived products). Additionally, 

according to Syngenta, less than 10% of corn fields that currently support ethanol plants (areas 

where Event 3272 corn may be grown), are in the production area for masa-contracted corn 

fields (Appendix G), further reducing the opportunity for misdirection of Event 3272 corn. 

Similar geographic separations of production area are expected for the grain inputs to other 

industrial facilities that process corn grain with restrictions similar to those in place for masa 

production. 

Geographic limitations for specialty corn varieties destined for other specific facilities are also 

the result of transportation costs. For example, farmers under contract to grow Event 3272 

would be in violation of the grower contracts if locations are too distant from an ethanol 

production plant that is ready to receive Event 3272. (See discussion of Production Practices 

above.) Furthermore, if those contracts are not in place, growers would be less likely to grow 

Event 3272 corn at a great distance from an ethanol production plant, as the value of Event 3272 

corn would diminish with the cost of shipping to the plant. 
38

As stated above, many types of specialty corn such as high amylose corn and waxy corn have 

different compositions that require the varieties to be grown, produced, transported, and 

processed separately from other corn varieties. Restrictive conditions for specialty corn are in 

place to maintain the integrity of both the varieties during production, and to maintain the

integrity of the various processing facilities that produce specific end-products for buyers. Event 

3272 corn has been successfully grown, harvested, transported, and delivered to an ethanol 

facility while under permit. Syngenta did not report and APHIS is not aware of any misdirection 

to other corn processing facilities or any harm to those facilities. 

Although a closed-loop system and other identity preservation systems are standard operating 

procedures and meet current best management practices for the production of specialty corn, 

there is a chance that growers will fail to follow the contractual obligations and instead produce 

Event 3272 corn such that the identity of the grain is not preserved. The potential economic 

consequences of producing and misdirecting Event 3272 corn to a food or feed corn processing 

facility, as opposed to an ethanol facility, are similar to when other specialty corn is not produced 

and shipped to the appropriate facility, such as if waxy corn were to be misdirected to a high 

amylose corn processing facility. There may be economic consequences of those actions. 

However, the magnitude of the economic effects, and the amount of corn needed to present 

detrimental effects, may be different for Event 3272 corn compared to other specialty corn 

varieties.

Cumulative Effects: Specialty Corn and Processing

Under the no action and preferred alternative, specialty corn will be grown, harvested, and 

transported to specialized processing facilities. The mechanisms currently in place to protect the 

identity of specialty corn varieties, including Event 3272 corn, will not be affected by granting 

nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn. There are no cumulative effects to the natural and 

physical environment through the use of another specialty corn crop such as Event 3272 corn. 

Planting, harvesting, and transporting of Event 3272 corn will occur under rigid closed loop 

systems currently used for other specialty corn varieties. The potential economic consequences 

of producing and misdirecting Event 3272 corn to a food or feed corn processing facility, as 

opposed to an intended corn ethanol facility, are similar to when other specialty corn is shipped

to the incorrect facility. Specialty corn production, and corn production in the U.S. in general, is 

currently successful and thrives, even with the understanding of economic risks of sending the 

wrong corn variety to the wrong place. Event 3272 corn is another specialty corn variety that 

will be planted, grown, harvested, and transported off the farm using a closed-loop system, and 

any cumulative effects to specialty corn and processing of corn is minimal.

Ethanol Production

Ethanol production is an integral part of meeting the renewable fuels standard (RFS) in the U.S. 

The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed on August 8, 2005, includes a Renewable Fuels 

Standard that directs the doubling of the use of ethanol and biodiesel in the U.S. fuel supply by 

2012 to 7.5 billion gallons (42 USC 15801, page 1069). The Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 passed in December 2007, includes a provision to expand consumption of 

alternative fuels, including but not limited to ethanol, to 36 billion gallons in 2022. With at least 

194 corn ethanol plants in operation in 28 different states, corn-based ethanol production may be 

a feasible way to meet the ethanol consumption benchmark for 2012 set in the Energy Policy Act 
39

of 2005.Based on the production output of ethanol production refineries operating at the end of 

2010, more than 98% of ethanol produced in the U.S. is made from corn 

(http://www.ethanolrfa.org, Accessed February 7, 2011). According to the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration, ethanol production is projected to increase by 50,000 barrels per day 

(bbl/d) to 910,000 bbl/d in 2011 and then grow by an additional 10,000 bbl/d in 2012. 

(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html, Accessed February 9, 2011).

No Action: Ethanol Production

Under the “no action” alternative, the process used for ethanol production would remain the 

same. Efficiency of ethanol production would remain at 2.8 gallons/bushel of corn. Corn-based 

ethanol production would still be used as one method to meet the benchmarks set by Congress in 

terms of biofuel consumption in the U.S. 

Preferred Alternative: Ethanol Production

The use of Event 3272 corn in ethanol facilities that agree to receive Event 3272 corn could 

result in changes in inputs, methods, and capital costs during ethanol production. Each of the 

potential changes is due to the substitution of Event 3272 corn grain, containing a thermostable 

alpha-amylase, for microbial alpha-amylase in the liquefaction stage of ethanol production. 

Appendix C contains a report submitted on behalf of Syngenta, and reviewed by APHIS, that 

outlines these changes in detail, and what is required of ethanol plants to efficiently and 

effectively use Event 3272 corn, including potential re-design of ethanol facilities. A brief 

summary of the potential changes discussed in the report are identified as issues associated with 

Public Health, Animal Feed and DDGS, and Water Use, which are discussed below.

In particular, cooking temperatures may be lowered during the liquefaction stage with Event 

3272 corn ethanol production, which potentially may result in decreases in energy usage, and has 

the added benefit of increasing ethanol yields. Ultimately, Syngenta believes that the changes 

associated with using Event 3272 corn in ethanol processing, instead of adding microbial alphaamylase during the process, will result in a 2% or greater increase in ethanol efficiency per 

bushel of corn. However, if the efficiency projected by Syngenta is not met, then ethanol 

production would likely remain at 2.8 gallons/bushel of corn, as in the “no action” alternative.

Cumulative Effects: Ethanol Production

Under both the “no action” alternative and the “preferred” alternative, expansion of ethanol 

production is expected to occur to meet renewable fuel standards. The increase in production is 

expected to be similar under both alternatives. There are no other petitions submitted for 

nonregulated status for GE organisms related to ethanol production. If granted nonregulated 

status, Event 3272 would be the only GE corn variety available specifically for ethanol 

production, and Event 3272 corn is likely limited to those ethanol plants that are contracted to 

receive Event 3272 corn.

Public Health

Human Health

Under 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 Event 3272 corn must be 
40

in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. GE organisms for food and 

feed may undergo a voluntary consultation process with the FDA prior to release onto the 

market.

Syngenta provided the FDA with information on identity, function, and characterization of the 

genes, as well the expression levels of the gene products. They also provided information on the 

potential allergenicity and toxicity of the expressed proteins. The FDA considers Syngenta's 

consultation on alpha-amylase Event 3272 corn to be complete (Appendix H). Syngenta also 

submitted information on identity, function, characterization of genes, expression levels of gene 

products, as well as information on the potential allergenicity and toxicity of the expressed 

proteins to APHIS. APHIS’ assessment of the safety of this product for humans and animals 

focuses on plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS 2009) and the effects on wildlife and threatened and 

endangered species (see section on Animals and Threatened and Endangered Species, pages 50-

52), and those analyses are based on the comparison of the GE-corn to its non-GE counterpart. 

No Action: Human Health

Syngenta has successfully completed the consultation process with the FDA for Event 3272 corn 

(Appendix H). The status of the FDA consultation will not change under the “no action” 

alternative. Other countries have also found Event 3272 corn safe for food and feed, including 

Australia, Canada, Mexico, Russia, and the Philippines (see http://ceragmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=Submit&evidcode=Event%203272, Date 

Accessed: February 7, 2011).

Preferred Alternative: Human Health

APHIS evaluated risks to human and other animal health that may result from the consumption 

and exposure of Event 3272 corn. Risk is a combination of hazard and exposure. APHIS first 

conducted hazard identification for Event 3272 corn. APHIS assessed the composition and 

nutritional quality of Event 3272 corn, and compared the composition of Event 3272 to the 

composition of a non-genetically engineered control corn line and the natural variation found in

commercial corn varieties. If the composition of Event 3272 corn is similar to other commercial 

corn plants, it is unlikely that Event 3272 poses an additional health hazard. If no hazards are 

identified, then the risk of Event 3272 corn causing harm is unlikely, regardless of exposure 

route. APHIS also assessed the exposure data presented by Syngenta to further evaluate any 

possible risk posed by Event 3272 corn to human or animal health.

Event 3272 corn is genetically engineered to produce a thermostable alpha-amylase. 

Additionally, alpha-amylases are ubiquitous enzymes found in microorganisms, plants, and 

animals (Janeček et al. 1999) to which humans and other animals are frequently exposed. 

These enzymes play a key role in many cellular metabolic processes by catalyzing the 

breakdown of starch, such as in germinating seed of cereal plants (Yu et al. 1996) or in the 

microbial decomposition of organic matter to provide carbon and energy for microbial growth 

processes (Rothstein et al. 1986). Many types of commercial food processing, feed ingredient 

applications, and industrial applications also utilize alpha-amylase enzymes, including the 

production of fuel and potable alcohol (brewing, distillation processes), and corn syrups (Janeček 

et al. 1999, Lévêque et al. 2000, Pariza and Johnson 2001, Olempska-Beer et al. 2006). 
41

The data presented in the petition suggests there is no difference in compositional and nutritional 

quality of Event 3272 corn compared to conventional corn, apart from the presence of 

AMY797E and PMI. Although some of the variables measured by the applicant showed 

statistically significant differences between Event 3272 corn and the nontransgenic hybrid 

controls (Tables 6-1 to 6-6, pages 70-76, of the petition), none of the values for the forage and 

grain composition characteristics were outside the range of natural variability of conventional 

corn as found in the International Life Sciences Institute Crop Composition Database (OECD 

2003, Ridley et al. 2004, ILSI 2006) or in the OECD consensus document on corn (OECD 2003)

composition. Event 3272 corn does not express additional proteins, natural toxicants, 

allelochemicals, pheromones, hormones, etc. that could directly or indirectly affect humans or 

other animals. Thus, the composition of Event 3272 is not biologically different than 

conventional corn.

Given that the composition of Event 3272 corn was found to be consistent with the natural 

variation found in conventional corn varieties, the applicant conducted studies to confirm the 

absence of deleterious effects for animals when feeding on Event 3272 corn. AMY797E is 

predominantly found in the corn kernels of Event 3272 plants (1627 μg/g fresh weight in the 

dough stage), with minute amounts found in the roots during the whole stage (<0.1 μg/g fresh 

weight) and in the leaves during senescence (<1 μg/g fresh weight) (Table 3-3 of petition). 

Animals that feed primarily on corn kernels are seed-feeding insects and rodents found in 

agricultural fields. During field trials, the applicant found no changes in insect feeding damage 

(Table 5-7 of petition), indicating similar insect susceptibility for Event 3272 corn compared to 

conventional corn.

Rodents, such as mice or squirrels, may seasonally feed exclusively on corn kernels. 

Accordingly, these animals are most likely to have a diet containing large amounts of corn 

kernels. Using dietary calculations (pages 93-94 of petition) along with the results of a mouse 

toxicity study (page 50 of petition and page 6 of the response letter from Syngenta), the applicant 

determined that the No Observed Effect Dose (NOED) of AMY797E was greater than 2 times 

the maximum amount of alpha-amylase corn a rodent might consume daily (page 94 of petition). 

Additionally, the applicant also evaluated the effects of AMY797E on birds by feeding broiler 

chickens diets that contained up to 65% of Event 3272 grain for 49 days (page 94 of petition and 

page 6 of response letter). The applicant reported no harmful effects to chickens from a diet 

extremely high in AMY797E. Humans and feed animals would have a significantly lower 

exposure to AMY797E because of feeding habits and diverse food sources.

AMY797E also does not have any significant sequence identity to any known toxins (page 7 of 

response letter from Syngenta). AMY797E is functionally similar to thermostable alphaamylases already safely used in food and feed processing (Janeček et al. 1999, Lévêque et al. 

2000, Pariza and Johnson 2001, Olempska-Beer et al. 2006), indicating that Event 3272 corn is 

unlikely to produce toxins that would negatively affect humans or other animals that may eat 

corn kernels or plants containing AMY797E. 

Concerns regarding the allergenicity of Event 3272 corn were raised by opponents of genetic 

engineering (Freese and Mayet 2006) centered around two components: 1) allergenicity of 

fungal-derived alpha-amylases and 2) thermostability of alpha-amylases. 
42

Fungal-derived alpha-amylases are one of the occupational allergens in the bakery industry 

(Houba et al. 1996, Houba et al. 1997). Syngenta assessed the potential allergenicity of the 

AMY797E alpha-amylase and phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) proteins by searching for 

amino acid homology between these proteins and known allergen protein sequences. These 

searches were conducted using a database comprised of identified or putative allergen sequences 

from publicly available databases (GenPept, PIR, SWISS-PROT, FAARP and IUIS) and 

additional putative allergen sequences from the scientific literature. Syngenta reported that for 

alpha-amylase in Event 3272 corn, there were no significant similarities between the alphaamylase found in Event 3272 corn and other allergens. There was one small section of the 

enzyme that corresponded with an allergen from an insect (American cockroach), but Syngenta 

maintains that this sequence identity is not biologically relevant and has no implication for the 

allergenic potential of the AMY797E alpha-amylase. AMY797E is a thermostable protein, 

which may be a consideration of what compounds are allergenic (Sampson 1999, Taylor and 

Hefle 2001). However Syngenta conducted digestibility experiments and found that AMY797E 

is not stable to digestion (Appendix H), and concluded that the AMY797E is unlikely to become 

allergenic. The FDA did not question the conclusion that AMY797E and PMI are not likely to 

become allergenic (Appendix H). APHIS has concluded that these studies are sufficient and 

agrees with the findings of the FDA.

Organisms exposed to AMY797E will also be exposed to PMI. The pmi (manA) gene comes 

from E. coli and encodes the PMI enzyme. Pmi serves as a marker gene that enables selection of 

lines that are genetically modified, providing the plant with the ability to utilize mannose as a 

sole carbon source. Table 3-4 of the petition gives the PMI expression data for Event 3272 corn. 

PMI expression was examined during 5 developmental stages of Event 3272 corn (whorl, 

anthesis, kernel dough, kernel maturity, and senescence). In Event 3272 corn, PMI is expressed 

in leaves during all stages except senescence, with maximum expression during the kernel dough 

stage (5.7 μg/g fresh weight). Expression of PMI in the roots occurs during all developmental 

stages with the highest expression of 1.0 μg/g fresh weight during the whorl stage. The highest 

PMI expression for kernels occurred during the kernel dough stage (0.8 μg/g fresh weight), and 

8.5 μg/g fresh weight of PMI was expressed in the pollen. The expression of PMI protein in 

corn plants is not expected to have deleterious effects or significant impacts on humans or other 

animals, based on the data provided in the petition. Dietary calculations to determine the daily 

dietary dose of PMI (page 93 of petition) and data from the mouse and bird toxicity studies (page 

94 of petition) indicate that PMI levels in Event 3272 corn do not cause harm.

Additionally, the EPA has granted an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the PMI 

protein as an inert ingredient in all plants (69 FR 26770-26775). The DNA encoding the PMI 

protein is not toxic. At the 80-amino acid peptide level, the PMI protein shares no significant 

homology with proteins known to be toxic or allergenic. Within one of the 80-amino acid 

windows, there was one region of sequence homology of eight contiguous amino-acids between 

PMI and a known allergen, α-parvalbumin from a Rana (frog) species. Further testing found no 

cross-reactivity between PMI and the human serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and Bovine Serum 

Albumin (BSA), indicating that the low degree of sequence identity between the PMI used in 

Event 3272 corn and α-parvalbumin from Rana sp. is not biologically relevant.

Based on the assessment of laboratory data provided by Syngenta in the submitted petition and 

an analysis of the scientific literature (USDA-APHIS 2009), along with the completion of the 
43

consultation process with FDA regarding Event 3272 corn (Appendix H), and consideration that 

other countries have also found Event 3272 safe for food and feed use (Table 1), APHIS has 

concluded that under this alternative, the proposed action to grant nonregulated status to Event 

3272 corn would have no significant impacts on human or animal health.

Cumulative Effects: Human Health

There are no significant impacts on human or animal health related to the no action alternative or 

granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn, and no cumulative effects have been identified. 

Worker Safety

No Action: Worker Safety

During agricultural production of corn, farmers may be exposed to pesticides during application 

of these chemicals to crops. Under the “no action” alternative, exposure to these agricultural 

chemicals during corn production would remain the same. 

Ethanol processing of corn grain into ethanol involves the use of hazardous chemicals. In 

standard ethanol production, pH is adjusted at several stages to maintain efficient processing 

using sulfuric acid and liquid ammonia during different ethanol processing steps for pH 

adjustment. Under the “no action” alternative, exposure to these ethanol processing chemicals 

would remain the same.

Preferred Alternative: Worker Safety

Worker safety issues related to the use of pesticides during agricultural production of Event 3272 

corn would remain the same as the “no action” alternative. As discussed under the issue of 

“Pesticide Use”, Event 3272 corn does not change the agronomic practices, or use of chemicals 

such as pesticides, associated with corn production.

The use of Event 3272 corn in ethanol production could result in changes in inputs and methods 

during ethanol production in those ethanol facilities that receive Event 3272 corn. Each of the 

potential changes is due to the substitution of Event 3272 corn grain, containing a thermostable 

alpha-amylase, for microbial alpha-amylase in the liquefaction stage of ethanol production. 

Appendix C contains a report submitted on behalf of Syngenta, and reviewed by APHIS, that 

outlines these changes in detail. A brief summary of the potential changes suggested to worker 

safety is provided below.

Using Event 3272 corn in the ethanol production process, instead of standard field corn with 

microbial alpha-amylase added, may eliminate constant adjustment of pH during processing. In 

standard ethanol production, pH is adjusted at several stages to maintain efficient processing. 

With the use of Event 3272 corn, and the potential consistency in pH during ethanol production, 

the use of sulfuric acid may be reduced by half because less sulfuric acid is needed to maintain 

pH. Urea may also be used as a substitute for liquid ammonia for additional pH balancing, 

because of the pH properties of ethanol processing due to the use of Event 3272 corn. Thus, the 

possible replacement and reduction of these hazardous chemicals (sulfuric acid and liquid 

ammonia) would reduce both environmental and workplace safety exposure. 
44

Cumulative Effects: Worker Safety

Worker safety issues related to the use of pesticides during agricultural production of corn would 

continue and remain the same under both alternatives. As discussed under the issue of “Pesticide

Use”, Event 3272 corn does not change the agronomic practices, or use of chemicals such as 

pesticides, associated with corn production. Worker safety issues related to ethanol production 

would continue to occur under both alternatives. The use of Event 3272 would reduce worker 

exposure to some hazardous chemicals used in ethanol production. There are no cumulative 

effects identified for this issue.

Animal Feed - DDGS

Dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) is a co-product of ethanol production, and is mainly 

used domestically as feed for dairy cattle, but also for hogs, swines, broilers and turkeys. As a 

result of increased ethanol production, the quantity of distillers grains marketed for use in animal 

feed has increased from 1.89 million metric tons in 1999 to 8.35 million metric tons in 2005 (a 

340 percent increase) and then more than tripled again to over 34 million metric tons in 2010 

(Hoffman and Baker, 2010). 

Approximately 90% of the distillers grains produced in U.S. facilities are used in domestic 

animal feed. Currently, ethanol plants do not discriminate between GE and non-GE corn. Given 

that 80% of corn production is GE, the DDGS produced and used as animal feed are likely 

produced with some GE corn varieties. 

 

Because of the near complete fermentation of starch during the ethanol process, the remaining 

amino acids, fat, minerals and vitamins in DDGS increase approximately three-fold in 

concentration compared to levels found in corn (Rausch and Belyea 2006). This can result in 

concerns regarding phosphorous and animal waste dispose, sulfur diet content, and mycotoxin 

concentrations in DDGS.

No Action: Animal Feed - DDGS

Under the “no action” alternative, DDGS will still be produced during ethanol production. 

Concerns will still surround DDGS nutritional content in terms of increased phosphorus 

concentration and the disposal of the resulting animal waste, high sulfur diet content, and 

increased mycotoxin concentrations as discussed in Section II. The successful completion of the 

consultation with FDA for Event 3272 corn (Appendix H) will not change under the “no action” 

alternative.

Preferred Alternative: Animal Feed - DDGS

DDGS are currently made with GE corn, so the use of a new GE corn variety in ethanol 

production will not change the availability of GE DDGS as an animal feed. Syngenta has 

completed the consultation process on Event 3272 corn with FDA (Appendix H), and has 

concluded that Event 3272 corn is considered safe for use in food and feed. Based on this FDA 

consultation, APHIS supports this conclusion. 

Overall, the use of Event 3272 corn is not anticipated to change the composition of DDGS. 

Ethanol production experiments at a laboratory scale conducted with Event 3272 corn found no 

difference in DDGS produced with conventional corn and with Event 3272 corn (Singh et al. 

2006). However, the experiments were run using only 3% of Event 3272 corn during the ethanol 
45

processing, and no comparisons of DDGS composition were conducted using 100% Event 3272 

corn. 

The use of Event 3272 corn in ethanol production is not anticipated to change the phosphorous or 

mycotoxin concerns surrounding the use of DDGS as animal feed, as discussed in Section II. 

However, if the use of Event 3272 corn in ethanol production decreased the use of sulfuric acid, 

the resultant DDGS may have a reduced sulfur content. This reduction in sulfur content in 

DDGS is a potential benefit as DDGS produced using the current ethanol production process

could have a sulfur content that results in toxicity to animals (Rausch and Belyea 2006). 

Under the “preferred” alternative, Event 3272 corn would be available for ethanol processing, 

and has the potential to alleviate some of the concerns surrounding sulfur content in DDGS, an

ethanol by-product used for animal feed. If the reductions in sulfuric acid during ethanol 

processing due to Event 3272 corn are not realized impacts regarding sulfur content would be 

similar to the no action alternative. Overall, the use of Event 3272 corn would still be considered 

safe for food and feed use, including DDGS (Appendix H).

Cumulative Effects: Animal Feed - DDGS

DDGS are currently made with GE corn and this production is expected to continue. The use of 

a new GE corn variety in ethanol production will not change the availability of GE DDGS as an 

animal feed. Syngenta has completed the consultation process on Event 3272 corn with FDA 

(Appendix H), and Event 3272 corn is considered safe for use in food and feed. There are no 

cumulative effects identified for this issue.

Gene Movement

Gene flow is the transfer of genetic information between different individuals and/or 

populations. Pollen flow, or the movement of genes from one plant to another, occurs between 

plants that are sexually-compatible, or able to receive pollen at the appropriate time during the 

appropriate plant stage. Corn does not have sexually-compatible relatives found in ‘natural’ 

area; corn is only able to reproduce with other corn plants in the U.S. (USDA-APHIS 2009). 

Corn pollen moves by the wind to other corn fields that are nearby. Successful gene movement 

from one plant to another requires many different biological and physical factors, such as timing 

of flowering between corn fields, viability of pollen, and presence of physical barriers;

consequently pollen movement is not equivalent to gene movement. A recent paper (Sanvido et 

al. 2008) reviewed studies investigating gene flow and gene movement studies in corn grain 

production fields, and using the data found that the gene movement from GE corn to non-GE 

corn typically remained below 0.5% at 50m (approx. 164 feet), and this result was validated 

when analyzing cross-fertilization events in large scale studies (Henry et al. 2003, Weber et al. 

2007). 

One study found cross-fertilization rates higher at comparable distances than other studies (Jones 

and Brooks 1950). Jones and Brooks (1950) found successful gene movement to be as high as 

2.5 % at 660ft. One potential reason for the discrepancy between this study and almost all other 

gene flow studies in corn may be due to the type of corn used in this study. Jones and Brooks 

(1950) investigated the appropriate isolation distance for seed production in open-pollinated 

varieties, and not for hybrid varieties. Due the biology of open-pollinated varieties, these types 
46

of plants may be more receptive to pollen over a longer period of time than hybrid corn plants 

(Sanvido et al. 2008), allowing for a greater chance of pollination events. Therefore, the results 

from Jones and Brooks (1950) may be an overestimation of cross-fertilization potential for 

hybrid corn plants.

No Action: Gene Movement

Under the “no action” alternative, Event 3272 corn would remain a regulated article and would 

require a permit or notification for release into the environment. Under regulated releases, GE 

corn is typically separated from non-regulated corn by a distance of 660ft, based on distances set 

for seed production (AOSCA 2004), if distance is the only method used to prevent movement of 

pollen or genes. APHIS has concluded this separation distance is sufficient to limit gene 

movement from occurring outside the release site. 

Preferred Alternative: Gene Movement

In 2008, GE corn production was planted on 80% of all corn acres currently in production in the 

US, and the use of GE corn has been increasing over the last 3 years (USDA-NASS 2006, 2007a, 

2008a, 2010b). Concurrently, organic corn acreage is also increasing at approximately 30% a 

year (USDA-ERS 2008a), even though there are no requirements that GE corn currently in 

production use mandated techniques for separation between the two types of corn varieties. 

There are also no mandated separation distances between other corn types. Syngenta has 

included some mandatory measures in their Stewardship Agreement, including measures to 

minimize pollen movement outside corn fields containing Event 3272 corn. 

Best management guidelines for Event 3272 corn (Appendix D and Appendix G) require the use 

of 12 border rows of non-Event 3272 corn to reduce the likelihood of gene movement between 

Event 3272 corn and other corn fields. The border rows of non-Event 3272 corn are used as a 

‘pollen trap.’ Corn pollen is heavy and most pollen does not travel far from the corn field 

(Sanvido et al. 2008). When pollen does move from Event 3272 corn, the border rows of corn 

will ‘catch’ the pollen in a ‘trap,’ and prevent the movement of pollen, and subsequently genes, 

outside of the field of Event 3272 corn. Additionally, Event 3272 corn is being grown as a 

specialty corn crop; maintaining the purity of this corn variety is also important. Hence, to a 

lesser degree, the border rows also act as a ‘pollen trap’ to prevent other corn pollen from 

entering the field of Event 3272 corn. The use of border rows may result in a reduction of up to 

more than 99.9% of Event 3272 corn pollen leaving the corn field (Appendix D). 

In agricultural systems, growers may choose to grow GE or non-GE corn, and obtain price 

premiums for growing particular varieties of corn for particular markets. In 2008, conventional 

field corn averaged $3.90/bushel (USDA-NASS, 2009b), whereas organic corn averaged 

$7.08/bushel (USDA-NASS 2010). USDA asserts that agricultural practices that use 

conventional means, organic production systems, or genetically engineered varieties can all 

provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. Gene movement into and out 

of these specialized corn production systems have been managed using various types of buffer 

zones or isolation practices, such as differences in planting (which results in differences in 

flowering) or making sure fields are distance from other compatible crops (such as using 

isolation distances). 
47

For example, besides the typical identity preservation and closed loop systems in place for 

specialty crops, those farmers using organic production also put in place measures to maintain 

purity for their crops. Typically, more than one method is used by farmers using organic 

methods to prevent unwanted material from entering their fields including; isolation of the farm, 

physical barriers or buffer zones between organic production and non-organic production, as 

well as formal communications between neighboring farms (NCAT 2003). The plan used as the 

basis for organic certification should include a description of practices used to prevent or reduce 

the likelihood of unwanted substances, like GE pollen or seed, at each step in the farming 

operation, such as planting, harvesting, storing and transporting the crop (Riddle 2004, Krueger 

2007, Kuepper et al. 2007). Plans for organic systems also should include of how the risk of 

GMO contamination will be monitored (Kuepper et al. 2007). Farmers using organic methods 

are requested to let neighboring farmers know that they are using organic production practices 

and request that the neighbors also help the farmer reduce contamination events (NCAT 2003, 

Krueger 2007). Commonly used production practices for corn and the practical methods 

typically used by corn farmers who use organic methods, or those that grown specialty crops, to 

protect their crop and maximize their profits and premiums granted to corn produced using 

approved plans currently provide many measures that will greatly reduce the likelihood of 

accidental gene flow between Event 3272 corn and other corn fields. 

As more and more corn acreage is using GE varieties, corn production for GE-sensitive markets 

has increased; for example corn produced using organic methods increased 35% between 2001 

and 2005 (USGC 2006), at the same time that corn acreage using GE varieties increased by 50% 

(USDA-NASS 2001, 2005). During this time, there was no mandated use of separation distance 

or other measures to minimize gene movement between corn fields, except for those measures 

taken by farmers who use organic production practices. No acreage data for corn production 

under organic methods is available since 2005, thus no further trend comparisons were 

conducted.

Based on the 2005 information, if growers of Event 3272 corn fail to use the separation 

techniques mandated in their contract with Syngenta, there is no indication that any pollen flow 

from GE corn to non-GE corn would dampen the organic production of corn. Event 3272 corn 

will be one of many GE varieties already in the marketplace, and GE corn already accounts for 

86% of corn planted in the U.S. Event 3272 corn will not increase the acreage of GE corn 

planted in the U.S. There are no new procedures or requirements that growers of non-GE 

varieties may need to implement as baseline market and economic conditions are already in place 

to account for GE varieties in U.S. corn production. Acreage using GE varieties has increased 

by 40% since 2005, and there is no corresponding data for acres of corn production under 

organic methods. Overall impacts of gene movement would be similar to the no action 

alternative. The pollen flow prevention measures in place for Event 3272 corn, along with 

geographic isolation and other factors that will be part of the closed-loop production system for 

Event 3272 corn will also minimize gene flow to other conventional and specialty corn varieties 

(See Production Practices above).

Cumulative Effect: Gene Movement

Event 3272 corn would be an additional GE and specialty corn variety that may be available to 

the farming community. Currently, GE corn is approximately 86% of all acreage of corn 

production in the U.S. The production area for Event 3272 corn will likely be limited to areas in 
48

states that currently have ethanol production facilities because this GE corn variety has been 

specifically developed for that purpose. Because GE corn is currently used in ethanol 

production, and Event 3272 corn will not change the amount of GE corn produced in the U.S., 

the availability of Event 3272 corn will not result in cumulative effects on gene movement. 

Event 3272 corn does not change the amount of GE pollen in the environment. 

Water Use in Ethanol Production

Ethanol production is an integral part of meeting the renewable fuels standard (RFS) in the U.S. 

Almost all (more than 98%) of U.S. ethanol is made from corn (http://www.ethanolrfa.org, 

Accessed February 7, 2011). Ethanol production typically uses 4.7 gallons of water to produce 1 

gallon of ethanol (Shapouri and Gallagher 2005). Water is also used during the manufacturing 

and transport of microbial alpha-amylase for conventional ethanol production.

No Action: Water Use in Ethanol Production

Under the “no action” alternative, there is no change in the conventional processes used for 

ethanol production. Water would still be used during the manufacturing and transport of 

microbial alpha-amylase for conventional ethanol production, and approximately 4.7 gallons of 

water would be used to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.

Preferred Alternative: Water Use in Ethanol Production

The use of Event 3272 corn could result in the water conservation in two ways. There is a 

potential for a decrease in water usage during ethanol production during the saccharification 

phase due to the properties of Event 3272 corn (Appendix C). However, large-scale ethanol 

plant research and development have not verified this potential savings. The use of Event 3272 

corn may result in the same water use in ethanol production as now [4.7 gallons of water for 1 

gallon of ethanol, (Shapouri and Gallagher 2005)].

Currently, water is intensively used during the production of microbial alpha-amylase and 

microbial alpha-amylase is also transported to the ethanol facility in a water solution. If Event 

3272 corn was used in ethanol production, water usage could be reduced because microbial 

alpha-amylase would not be needed in ethanol production due to the replacement by the alphaamylase in Event 3272 corn. 

Cumulative Effect: Water Use in Ethanol Production

Water is currently used in the production of ethanol and this practice will continue with the 

availability of Event 3272 corn. Ethanol production typically uses 4.7 gallons of water to 

produce 1 gallon of ethanol (Shapouri and Gallagher 2005). Water is also used during the 

manufacturing and transport of microbial alpha-amylase for conventional ethanol production. 

Granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn may potentially decrease water use. However, 

no cumulative effects have been identified for this issue.

Animal and Plant Communities

Animals

Corn production systems in agriculture are host many animal species. Mammals and birds may 

seasonally use grain, and invertebrates can feed on the plant during the entire growing season. 
49

The cumulative effects analysis for this issue is found below at “Cumulative Effects: Plants, 

Animals, Biodiversity.” 

No Action: Animals

Under the “no action” alternative, environmental releases of Event 3272 corn would be under 

regulation. Animal incursions are limited during regulated field trials, but may occur. However, 

the consultation with FDA has been successfully completed for Event 3272 corn (Appendix H), 

which addressed any concerns of composition, as well as demonstrated a lack of toxicity and 

allergenicity, of Event 3272 corn for human and animal consumption. Based upon the FDA 

consultation, APHIS supports Syngenta’s conclusions that Event 3272 corn is considered safe for 

animal consumption. 

Preferred Alternative: Animals

APHIS has reviewed and accepts the data submitted by the applicant that confirmed the absence 

of deleterious effects for wildlife when feeding on Event 3272 corn. The data are similar to what 

was submitted during the FDA consultation process for Event 3272 corn (Appendix H). 

Agronomic practices used to produce Event 3272 corn will be the same as those used to produce

conventionally grown corn, and the effects discussion for Event 3272 corn on animals will focus 

solely on the effects of the introduced proteins in Event 3272 corn, the alpha-amylase enzyme 

and the phosphomannose enzyme (used as a selectable marker for Event 3272 corn).

Event 3272 corn contains the alpha-amylase protein, AMY797E, which is found predominantly 

in the corn kernels of Event 3272 corn plants (1627 μg/g fresh weight in the dough stage), with 

minute amounts found in the roots during the whole stage (<0.1 μg/g fresh weight) and in the 

leaves during senescence (<1 μg/g fresh weight) (Table 3-3 of petition). Animals that feed 

primarily on corn kernels are seed-feeding insects and rodents found in agricultural fields. 

During field trials, the applicant found no changes in insect feeding damage (Table 5-7 of 

petition), indicating similar insect susceptibility for Event 3272 corn compared to conventional 

corn. Event 3272 corn has not been genetically engineered to produce any pesticides.

Rodents, such as mice or squirrels, may seasonally feed exclusively on corn kernels. 

Accordingly, these animals are most likely to have a diet containing large amounts of corn 

kernels. Using the dietary calculations (pages 93-94 of petition) along with the results of a 

mouse toxicity study (page 50 of petition and page 6 of response letter), the applicant determined 

that the no observed effect dose (NOED) of AMY797E was greater than 2 times the maximum 

amount of alpha-amylase corn a rodent might consume daily (page 94 of petition). Other 

mammals, such as deer, would have even lower exposure to AMY797E because of feeding 

habits; for example, deer nibble on tips of corn ears as opposed to kernels (Steffey et al. 1999). 

APHIS has reviewed this information and has determined that there would be no negative effects 

to mammals that forage in Event 3272 corn. 

The applicant also evaluated the effects of AMY797E on birds by feeding broiler chickens diets 

that contained up to 65% of Event 3272 grain for 49 days (page 94 of petition and page 6 of 

response letter). The applicant reported no harmful effects to chickens from a diet extremely 

high in AMY797E. Moreover, given that diets high in AMY797E do not result in harmful 

effects, the diets of wild birds that occasionally forage in corn fields are unlikely to contain high 

amounts of AMY797E for 49 consecutive days as corn availability is limited by seed 
50

germination and harvest. APHIS has reviewed this information and has determined that there 

would be no negative effects to birds that forage in Event 3272 corn. 

Additionally, animals have been previously exposed to alpha-amylases in the environment, as 

they are ubiquitous enzymes found in microorganisms, plants, and animals (Janeček et al. 1999). 

AMY797E also does not have any significant sequence identity to any known toxins (page 7 of 

response letter). As stated earlier, AMY797E is functionally similar to thermostable alphaamylases already safely used in food and feed processing (Janeček et al. 1999, Lévêque et al. 

2000, Pariza and Johnson 2001, Olempska-Beer et al. 2006), indicating that Event 3272 corn is 

unlikely to produce toxins that would negatively affect animals that may eat corn kernels or 

plants containing AMY797E. 

Organisms exposed to the AMY797E protein in Event 3272 corn will also be exposed to PMI, a 

protein used by the applicant to select genetically engineered plants during breeding. Additional 

species, such as leaf-feeding animals, butterflies and bees, may not be exposed to AMY797E but 

will be exposed to PMI because of its expression in vegetative tissue and pollen (Table 3-4 of 

petition). The pmi (manA) gene comes from E. coli and encodes the enzyme phosphomannose 

isomerase (PMI). Pmi serves as a marker gene that enables selection of lines that are genetically 

engineered, providing the plant with the ability to utilize mannose as a sole carbon source. Table 

3-4 of the petition gives the PMI expression data for Event 3272 corn. PMI expression was 

examined during 5 developmental stages of Event 3272 corn (whorl, anthesis, kernel dough, 

kernel maturity, and senescence). In Event 3272 corn, PMI is expressed in leaves during all 

stages except senescence, with maximum expression during the kernel dough stage (5.7 μg/g 

fresh weight). Expression of PMI in the roots occurs during all developmental stages with the 

highest expression of 1.0 μg/g fresh weight during the whorl stage. The highest PMI expression 

for kernels occurred during the kernel dough stage (0.8 μg/g fresh weight), and 8.5 μg/g fresh 

weight of PMI was expressed in the pollen. The expression of PMI protein in corn plants is not 

expected to have deleterious effects or significant impacts on non-target organisms or TES 

organisms, based on the data provided in the petition. Dietary calculations to determine the daily 

dietary dose of PMI (page 93 of petition) and data from the mouse and bird toxicity studies (page 

94 of petition) indicate that PMI levels in Event 3272 corn do not cause harm in wildlife 

populations, including threatened and endangered species.

Additionally, the EPA has granted an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the PMI 

protein as an inert ingredient in all plants (69 FR 26770-26775). The DNA encoding the PMI 

protein is not toxic. At the 80-amino acid peptide level, the PMI protein shares no significant 

homology with proteins known to be toxic or allergenic. Within one of the 80-amino acid 

windows, there was one region of sequence homology of eight contiguous amino-acids between 

PMI and a known allergen, α-parvalbumin from a Rana (frog) species. Further testing found no 

cross-reactivity between PMI and the human serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and Bovine Serum 

Albumin (BSA), indicating that the low degree of sequence identity between the PMI used in 

Event 3272 corn and α-parvalbumin from Rana sp. is not biologically relevant.

Plants

Corn production systems in agriculture are host many plant species as well. The landscape 

surrounding a corn field varies depending on the region. In certain areas, corn fields may be 

bordered by other corn (or any other crop); fields may also be surrounded by wooden and/or 
51

pasture/grassland areas. Therefore, the types of vegetation, including weeds, around a corn field 

depend on the area where the corn is planted. A variety of weeds dwell in and around corn 

fields; those species will also vary depending on the region where the corn is planted. Corn itself 

is not sexually compatible with any other plant species found in the U.S. (USDA-APHIS 2009). 

The cumulative effects analysis for this issue is found below at “Cumulative Effects: Plants, 

Animals, Biodiversity.” 

No Action: Plants

Under the “no action” alternative, environmental releases of Event 3272 corn would be under 

regulation. Plant species that typically inhabit corn production systems will be managed as in 

conventional corn production, including the use of mechanical, cultural, and chemical control 

methods. 

Preferred Alternative: Plants

If Event 3272 corn was granted nonregulated status, agricultural practices used for conventional 

corn would be used for plant management during the cultivation of Event 3272 corn. Impacts 

would be similar to the no action alternative. Event 3272 corn does not exhibit characteristics 

associated with weedy growth and will not compete with plants found outside of agricultural 

production. Weeds within fields of Event 3272 corn will be managed using mechanical, cultural, 

and chemical control, as weeds are now managed in conventional corn systems. As there are no 

toxic effects on animals (see Animals discussion above), there are no toxic effects on animals 

that could be pollinators of other plants in or around fields cultivated with Event 3272 corn. 

Event 3272 corn has not been genetically engineered to be tolerant to any herbicides.

Biological Diversity

Biological diversity, or the variation in species or life forms in an area, is highly managed in 

agricultural systems. Farmers typically plant crops that are genetically adapted to grow well in a 

specific area of cultivation and may have even been bred for a particular purpose. In the case of 

corn agriculture, corn varieties have been developed for food processing needs (e.g., waxy corn), 

varietal development (e.g., blue corn or white corn), or for use as a vegetable (e.g. sweet corn). 

In conventional agriculture, farmers want to encourage high yields from their corn crop, and will 

intensively manage the ‘plant communities’, or weeds, found in corn crops through chemical, 

cultural, or mechanical means. Animals, particularly insect and other pest species will also be 

managed through chemical and cultural controls to protect the crop from destruction by animals. 

Therefore, the biological diversity in agricultural systems (the agro-ecosystem) is highly 

managed and may be lower than in the surrounding habitats. The cumulative effects analysis for 

this issue is found below at “Cumulative Effects: Plants, Animals, Biodiversity.” 

No Action: Biological Diversity

Under the “no action” alternative, environmental releases of Event 3272 corn would be under 

regulation. Animal and plant species that typically inhabit corn production systems will be 

managed as in conventional corn production, including the use of mechanical, cultural, and 

chemical control methods. 

Preferred Alternative: Biological Diversity

Under the “preferred” alternative cultivation of Event 3272 corn requires the same agronomic 

practices as conventional corn production. Animal and plant species that typically inhabit corn 
52

production systems will be managed as in conventional corn production, likely with the use of 

mechanical, cultural, and chemical control methods. Overall impacts would be similar to the no 

action alternative. 

Cumulative Effects: Animals, Plants, Biodiversity

Event 3272 corn has not been genetically engineered to produce a toxin or pesticide, and has not 

been genetically engineered to be tolerant to an herbicide. Although some studies have found 

both increases and decreases in animal and plant diversity and abundance in the agro-ecosystem 

due to the use of GE crops (Hansen Jesse and Obrycki 2000, Ponsard et al. 2002, Brooks et al. 

2003, Haughton et al. 2003, Hawes et al. 2003, Marshall et al. 2003, Roy et al. 2003, Romeis et 

al. 2004, Sisterson et al. 2004, Bitzer et al. 2005, Pilcher et al. 2005, Torres and Ruberson 2005, 

Romeis et al. 2006, Marvier et al. 2007, Chen et al. 2008, Wolfenbarger et al. 2008), Event 3272 

corn is unlikely to affect the animal or plant communities found in conventional corn production 

systems because of the lack of toxicity and allergenicity, and because there is no change to 

agronomic practices due to the cultivation of Event 3272 corn.

Soil Biology

The soil environment in and around corn fields is complex, rich in microorganisms and 

arthropods. The corn root system acts as a soil modifier due to its association with several 

microbial groups such as bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and mites. Bacteria typically represent the 

most abundant microbes in the soil followed by fungi. These microbial groups play an important 

and particular role in the ecology of the soil, including nutrimental cycling and the availability of 

nutrients for plant growth.

Research shows that crop soils are prone to degradation due to the disturbance and exposure of 

the top surface layer by certain agronomic practices. Two environmental impacts of soil 

degradation are the decline in water quality and the contribution to the greenhouse effect (Lal 

and Bruce 1999). 

No Action: Soil Biology

Under the “no action” alternative, environmental releases of Event 3272 corn would be under 

regulation. Interactions with the soil would be limited to the areas that were approved for 

regulated releases. Cultivation practices associated with regulated releases of Event 3272 corn 

would be the same as conventional corn production. The soil environment would be modified by 

corn roots and crop soils would still be affected by agronomic practices associated with 

conventional corn cultivation.

Preferred Alternative: Soil Biology

Under the “preferred” alternative, soil interactions with Event 3272 corn would occur at a large 

scale. Cultivation practices associated with regulated releases of Event 3272 corn would be the 

same as conventional corn production. The soil environment would be modified by corn roots 

and crop soils would still be affected by agronomic practices associated with conventional corn 

cultivation. Overall impacts would be similar to the no action alternative. 

Event 3272 corn was engineered in such a way that the alpha-amylase protein is produced nearly 

exclusively in the grain. This is important in the case of roots, because they are in contact with 
53

the soil and could possibly affect soil biology. The protein was detected in the roots of four out 

of ten plants tested at the whorl stage, but not in any plants at any later stages of development. 

The level was extremely low, less than0.1 μg/g fresh weight, which is more than two thousand 

fold lower than in kernels. For this reason, roots are not likely to contribute biologically 

significant amounts of alpha-amylase to the soil. 

Because roots are not likely to contribute alpha-amylase to the soil, and because larger amounts 

are found in grain, the degradation of grain is the main avenue for alpha amylase to find its way 

into the soil. Event 3272 grain contains 1627 μg/g fresh weight of alpha-amylase in the grain in 

the dough stage (Table 3-3, page 44 of Petition). It has been estimated (Wolt and Karaman,

2007) that approximately 1% of grain is lost during harvest, which falls to the ground in the 

field. Wolt and Karaman (2007) estimated potential amounts of alpha-amylase that might 

accumulate in agricultural soils over time and space due to the use of Event 3272 corn. The 

study assumed levels of alpha-amylase in grain, leaves, and roots to extrapolate and estimate 

environmental amounts of alpha-amylase that might accumulate in corn fields in Iowa. 

According to their calculations, they projected an order of magnitude increase in the amount of 

alpha-amylase, due to increased amounts of alpha-amylase, in soils in Iowa corn fields. 

However, the authors did not present any empirical evidence to suggest that alpha-amylase 

would persist, and more importantly, did not consider the potential for natural degradation of 

alpha-amylase. An abstract was cited (Kosaki et al. 2006) that found soil persistence of another 

thermostable protein, however, the comparison between the two proteins was based solely on the 

thermostability of each of the proteins, and not the degradability of the proteins. Thermostability

in and of itself is not a characteristic related to the ability of an enzyme to degrade, or persist for 

that matter, in agricultural soils.

Amylases, including alpha-amylases, are enzymes that are ubiquitous in nature and naturally 

occur in soils. In soil, a high diversity of alpha-amylases are commonly found (Rondon et al. 

2000). The microbial soil community and activity is complex, with a multitude of chemical and 

enzymatic interactions. Soils that have healthy microbial activity produce sufficient levels of 

proteases to degrade most proteins (Marx et al. 2005). Digestibility data presented to APHIS and 

FDA (Appendix H) by Syngenta show degradation of alpha-amylase from Event 3272 corn by a 

single protease, pepsin. Although pepsin is not normally found in soils, the data do suggest that 

alpha-amylase is not inherently indigestible or non-degradable. 

Degradation of grain would have to occur before alpha-amylase would be released into soil. 

Grain left in the field does not immediately result in the increased amounts of alpha-amylase in 

soil. Even if present, amylase would have no effect unless specific conditions for enzyme 

activity are met including substrate availability, inducers, availability of other nutrients, physical 

and chemical parameters such as moisture, temperature, and pH. These characteristics vary in 

time and space and from one microenvironment to another. Additionally, according to Syngenta, 

alpha-amylase from Event 3272 is constructed for maximum activity at 176oF (80oC), and only 

has 10% of its maximal activity under 86oF (30oC). None of these limiting factors were 

considered in the estimations and conjecture of potential contributes of Event 3272 grain to 

alpha-amylase levels in the soil by Wolt and Karaman (2007). 
54

Cumulative Effects: Soil Biology

The impacts to soil biology under the preferred alternative are unlikely to differ significantly 

from the No Action Alternative. Soil environments where Event 3272 corn is grown will not be 

significantly changed by the increased exposure to amylase. Alpha-amylase from Event 3272

corn will not have significant activity within soils, and is expected to be readily degraded by 

microorganisms. No cumulative effects are identified for this issue. 

Conservation Reserve Program

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), administered by the USDA, is the largest privatelands conservation program in the U.S. According to the Farm Service Agency:

CRP plantings and practices offer our nation vast environmental benefits, including 

reducing soil erosion, improving surface and ground water quality, creating wildlife 

habitat, restoring wetlands, sequestering carbon, preserving soil productivity, and 

reducing offsite wind erosion damages. Some of CRP’s substantial 2007 

accomplishments include:

• Reducing runoff of sediment (207 million tons), nitrogen (480 million pounds), 

and phosphorus (108 million pounds) from agricultural soils.

• Restoring and protecting 2.1 million acres of wetlands and adjacent buffers.

• Establishing 1.9 million acres of grass and forested buffers along the nation’s 

rivers and streams.

• Improving populations of Prairie Pothole ducks, ring-necked pheasants, sage 

grouse, bobwhite quail, and other grassland birds.

• Sequestering over 50 million tons of carbon. (USDA-FSA 2007)

There is public concern that the demand for ethanol production, and subsequent corn prices, are a 

catalyst resulting in removing acreage from the Conservation Reserve Program to place into corn 

production (Hart 2006). 

No Action: Conservation Reserve Program

Acres removed or maintained in the Conservation Reserve Program will not change under the 

“no action” alternative. Demands for ethanol production and corn prices may result in growers 

removing acres from the CRP and placing them into corn production, under the “no action” 

alternative. Market demands and corn prices are the drivers behind decisions made by growers 

to remove acres from CRP (Hart 2006).

Preferred Alternative: Conservation Reserve Program

As stated in Section II, the demands for ethanol production and increased corn prices may result 

in growers removing acres from the CRP and place them into corn production, independent of 

granting Event 3272 nonregulated status. Overall impacts on the Conservation Reserve Program 

are similar to the no action alternative. 

Cumulative Effects: Conservation Reserve Program

The demands for ethanol production and increased corn prices are likely greater factors in 

determining if a farmer would remove acres from the CRP and place them into corn production, 

than granting Event 3272 nonregulated status. No cumulative effects identified for this issue. 
55

Role of Assumptions in Environmental Consequences Analyses

Event 3272 corn will be grown under strict contractual agreements and a closed loop system to 

protect the value of the corn for ethanol production, similar to how other specialty corn varieties 

are grown, harvested, transported, and marketed in the U.S. However, APHIS recognizes that 

there is a small chance that some members of the system may not live up to the contractual 

obligations. Each of the above issues was analyzed with the consideration that the assumptions

made by APHIS were not met. Failure to follow contractual agreements will not result in 

significant environmental impacts in terms of corn production, ethanol production, public health, 

water use in ethanol production, animal and plant communities, soil biology, and Conservation 

Reserve Program acreage. Event 3272 corn is planted, grown, and harvested similar to other 

conventional corn. Event 3272 corn does not change the acreage devoted to corn production in 

the U.S., does not change where corn can be produced in the U.S., and will not change the 

acreage of corn planted to GE varieties (86% of corn acreage in the U.S. is planted to GE 

varieties, which is also used in corn ethanol facilities).

Planting, harvesting, and transporting of Event 3272 corn will occur under rigid closed loop 

systems currently used for other specialty corn varieties. The potential economic consequences 

of lapses of the close-loop system have been analyzed. As stated above, there is no harm to the 

natural or physical environment of planting, growing, or harvesting Event 3272 corn. However, 

once the truckload of corn has left the farm, it is possible that Event 3272 corn may be delivered 

to an incorrect facility. The economic and marketing effects of misdirecting Event 3272 corn to 

a food or feed corn processing facility, as opposed to an intended corn ethanol facility, are 

similar to the economic and marketing effects that occur when other specialty corn is shipped to 

the incorrect facility, or when manufacturing ingredients end up at an incorrect processing plant. 

There is the potential for economic and marketing harms for food processing facilities when 

material ends up at an unintended facility, whether it is high amylose corn, waxy corn, or Event 

3272 corn. 

Other Cumulative Effects

All potential cumulative effects regarding specific issues have been analyzed and addressed 

above. No further potential cumulative effects have been identified. Stacked varieties, those 

crop varieties that may contain more than one trait, are currently found in the marketplace and in 

agricultural production. If granted nonregulated status, Event 3272 corn may be combined with 

other GE corn varieties by traditional breeding techniques, resulting in amylase corn that, for 

example, may also be resistant to herbicides or insects. Some GE corn varieties used for any 

commercial breeding program have already been found not to pose a plant pest risk, and have 

been granted nonregulated status by APHIS. Syngenta currently has 4 GE corn varieties that 

may be stacked with Event 3272 corn: three varieties that have an insect-resistance trait (Bt11 

and Mir604) and one variety that has an herbicide-tolerance trait (GA21). These corn lines 

(Bt11, MIR604, GA21, MIR 162) have all been granted non-regulated status, and the 

environmental assessments and FONSI determinations conducted by APHIS for each of these 

products can be found at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html. There is no guarantee that 

Event 3272 corn will be stacked with any particular deregulated GE variety, as company plans 

and market demands play a significant role in those business decisions. APHIS current 

regulations at 7 CFR part 340 do not provide for Agency oversight of these GE corn varieties 

previously granted nonregulated status, nor over stacked varieties combining deregulated GE 

varieties unless it can be positively shown that such stacked varieties were somehow likely to 
56

pose a plant pest risk. Further, there is no guarantee that Event 3272 corn will be stacked with 

any particular deregulated GE variety, as company plans and market demands play a significant 

role in those business decisions. Moreover, Event 3272 corn could even be combined with nonGE corn varieties. Thus, postulating and predicting any and all potential combinations of 

stacked varieties that could be created using both deregulated GE corn varieties and also non-GE 

corn varieties is too hypothetical and purely speculative. 
57

Threatened and Endangered Species

APHIS evaluated the potential for negative effects on Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species (TES) as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?dsource=animals, 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?dsource=plants, accessed 8/12/08 and 2/7/11), from 

cultivation of Event 3272 corn and its progeny. To identify negative effects or significant 

impacts on TES animal species, APHIS evaluated the risks to TES animals from consuming 

Event 3272 corn. Risk is a combination of hazard and exposure. APHIS first conducted hazard 

identification for Event 3272 corn. APHIS assessed the composition and nutritional quality of 

Event 3272 corn, and compared the composition of Event 3272 to the composition of a nongenetically engineered control corn line and the natural variation found in commercial corn 

varieties. Corn is a feed common for many livestock and wildlife (e.g., birds, deer, and rodents). 

If the composition of Event 3272 corn is similar to other commercial corn plants, it is unlikely 

that Event 3272 poses a hazard to TES animal species. If no hazards are identified, then the risk 

of Event 3272 corn harming TES animal species is also unlikely, regardless of exposure. 

However, APHIS also assessed the exposure data presented by Syngenta to further elucidate the 

exposure posed by Event 3272 corn to TES animals.

Event 3272 corn is genetically engineered to produce a thermostable alpha-amylase. Alphaamylases are ubiquitous in the environment, being naturally present in microorganisms, plants 

and animals (Janeček et al. 1999). These enzymes play a key role in many cellular metabolic 

processes by catalyzing the breakdown of starch, such as in germinating seed of cereal plants 

(Yu et al. 1996) or in the microbial decomposition of organic matter to provide carbon and 

energy for microbial growth processes (Rothstein et al. 1986). Many types of commercial food 

processing, feed ingredient applications, and industrial applications also utilize alpha-amylase 

enzymes, including the production of fuel and potable alcohol (brewing, distillation processes), 

and corn syrups (Janeček et al. 1999, Lévêque et al. 2000, Pariza and Johnson 2001, OlempskaBeer et al. 2006). 

The data presented in the petition suggests there is no difference in compositional and nutritional 

quality of Event 3272 corn compared to conventional corn, apart from the presence of 

AMY797E and PMI. Although some of the variables measured by the applicant showed 

statistically significant differences between Event 3272 corn and the nontransgenic hybrid 

controls (Tables 6-1 to 6-6, pages 70-76, of the petition), none of the values for the forage and 

grain composition characteristics were outside the range of natural variability of conventional 

corn as found in the International Life Sciences Institute Crop Composition Database (OECD 

2003, Ridley et al. 2004, ILSI 2006) or in the OECD consensus document on corn (OECD 2003)

composition. Event 3272 corn does not express additional proteins, natural toxicants, 

allelochemicals, pheromones, hormones, etc. that could directly or indirectly affect a listed TES 

or species proposed for listing. Thus, the composition of Event 3272 is not biologically different 

than conventional corn.

Given that the composition of Event 3272 corn was found to be consistent with the natural 

variation found in conventional corn varieties, the applicant conducted studies to confirm the 

absence of deleterious effects for animals when feeding on Event 3272 corn. AMY797E is 

predominantly found in the corn kernels of Event 3272 plants (1627 μg/g fresh weight in the 
58

dough stage), with minute amounts found in the roots during the whole stage (<0.1 μg/g fresh 

weight) and in the leaves during senescence (<1 μg/g fresh weight) (Table 3-3 of petition). 

Animals that feed primarily on corn kernels are seed-feeding insects and rodents found in 

agricultural fields. During field trials, the applicant found no changes in insect feeding damage 

(Table 5-7 of petition), indicating similar insect susceptibility for Event 3272 corn compared to 

conventional corn.

Rodents, such as mice or squirrels, may seasonally feed exclusively on corn kernels. 

Accordingly, these animals are most likely to have a diet containing large amounts of corn 

kernels. Using dietary calculations (pages 93-94 of petition) along with the results of a mouse 

toxicity study (page 50 of petition and page 6 of response letter from Syngenta), the applicant 

determined that the No Observed Effect Dose (NOED) of AMY797E was greater than 2 times 

the maximum amount of alpha-amylase corn a rodent might consume daily (page 94 of petition). 

Other mammals, such as deer, would have even lower exposure to AMY797E because of feeding 

habits; for example, deer nibble on tips of corn ears as opposed to kernels (Steffey et al. 1999). 

Therefore, there would be no negative impact to TES mammals that forage in Event 3272 corn.

The applicant also evaluated the effects of AMY797E on birds by feeding broiler chickens diets 

that contained up to 65% of Event 3272 grain for 49 days (page 94 of petition and page 6 of 

response letter). The applicant reported no harmful effects to chickens from a diet extremely 

high in AMY797E. Moreover, given that diets high in AMY797E do not result in harmful 

effects, the diets of wild birds that occasionally forage in corn fields, including threatened and 

endangered species such as the whooping crane, are unlikely to contain high amounts of 

AMY797E for 49 consecutive days as corn availability is limited by seed germination and 

harvest.

Additionally, threatened and endangered species have been previously exposed to alphaamylases in the environment, as they are ubiquitous enzymes found in microorganisms, plants, 

and animals (Janeček et al. 1999). AMY797E also does not have any significant sequence 

identity to any known toxins (page 7 of response letter from Syngenta). As stated earlier, 

AMY797E is functionally similar to thermostable alpha-amylases already safely used in food 

and feed processing (Janeček et al. 1999, Lévêque et al. 2000, Pariza and Johnson 2001, 

Olempska-Beer et al. 2006), indicating that Event 3272 corn is unlikely to produce toxins that 

would negatively affect animals that may eat corn kernels or plants containing AMY797E. 

Organisms exposed to AMY797E will also be exposed to PMI. Additional species, such as leaffeeding animals, butterflies and bees, may not be exposed to AMY797E but will be exposed to 

PMI because of its expression in vegetative tissue and pollen (Table 3-4 of petition). The pmi

(manA) gene comes from E. coli and encodes the enzyme PMI. Pmi serves as a marker gene that 

enables selection of lines that are genetically modified, providing the plant with the ability to 

utilize mannose as a sole carbon source. Table 3-4 of the petition gives the PMI expression data 

for Event 3272 corn. PMI expression was examined during 5 developmental stages of Event 

3272 corn (whorl, anthesis, kernel dough, kernel maturity, and senescence). In Event 3272 corn, 

PMI is expressed in leaves during all stages except senescence, with maximum expression during 

the kernel dough stage (5.7 μg/g fresh weight). Expression of PMI in the roots occurs during all 

developmental stages with the highest expression of 1.0 μg/g fresh weight during the whorl 

stage. The highest PMI expression for kernels occurred during the kernel dough stage (0.8 μg/g 
59

fresh weight), and 8.5 μg/g fresh weight of PMI was expressed in the pollen. The expression of 

PMI protein in corn plants is not expected to have deleterious effects or significant impacts on 

TES organisms, based on the data provided in the petition. Dietary calculations to determine the 

daily dietary dose of PMI (page 93 of petition) and data from the mouse and bird toxicity studies 

(page 94 of petition) indicate that PMI levels in Event 3272 corn do not cause harm for 

threatened and endangered species.

Additionally, the EPA has granted an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the PMI 

protein as an inert ingredient in all plants (69 FR 26770-26775). The DNA encoding the PMI 

protein is not toxic. At the 80-amino acid peptide level, the PMI protein shares no significant 

homology with proteins known to be toxic or allergenic. Within one of the 80-amino acid 

windows, there was one region of sequence homology of eight contiguous amino-acids between 

PMI and a known allergen, α-parvalbumin from a Rana (frog) species. Further testing found no 

cross-reactivity between PMI and the human serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and Bovine Serum 

Albumin (BSA), indicating that the low degree of sequence identity between the PMI used in 

Event 3272 corn and α-parvalbumin from Rana sp. is not biologically relevant.

Corn itself is not sexually compatible with any TES plant species; therefore there is no potential 

for a direct effect of Event 3272 corn on TES plants. Indirect effects of Event 3272 corn on TES 

plant species were also evaluated. As stated above, Event 3272 corn has no negative effect on 

animals, including animals such as insects or bats, which may be pollinators for TES plants. As 

a result, there are no indirect effects of Event 3272 corn on TES plant species. 

Cultivation of Event 3272 corn is not expected to differ from typical corn cultivation. Event 3272 

corn is not genetically engineered to produce a toxin or pesticide, and is not genetically 

engineered to be tolerant to an herbicide. Although the extent to which Event 3272 corn will be 

grown is ultimately unknown, this product is expected to replace other GE and non-GE corn 

varieties currently grown for the ethanol market. After reviewing the possible effects of granting 

nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn, APHIS has not identified any stressor caused directly by 

this product that could affect the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of a listed TES or species 

proposed for listing. The potential environmental impacts on TES of this product are those 

associated with typical corn agriculture. Growers planting Event 3272 corn, as with any other 

corn variety, genetically engineered or not, should consider the environmental impacts of 

agronomic practices on those TES found in and around their corn field. 

After reviewing possible effects of granting nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn, APHIS has 

not identified any stressor that could affect the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of a listed 

TES or species proposed for listing. Consequently, an exposure analysis for individual species is 

not necessary. APHIS has considered the effect of Event 3272 corn production on designated 

critical habitat or habitat proposed for designation and could identify no difference from affects 

that would occur from the production of other corn varieties. APHIS has reached a conclusion 

that the release of Event 3272 corn, following a determination of nonregulated status, would 

have no effect on federally listed threatened or endangered species or species proposed for 

listing, nor is it expected to adversely modify designated critical habitat or habitat proposed for 

designation, compared to current agricultural practices. Consequently, a written concurrence or 

formal consultation with the USFWS is not required for this action. Based on this analysis, there 
60

is no apparent potential for significant impact on threatened or endangered species if APHIS 

were to grant the petition for nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn. 

Compliance with Statutes, Executive Orders and Regulations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (US-NARA 2008), “Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”, requires Federal agencies to 

conduct their programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the 

environment in a manner so as not to exclude persons and populations from participation in or 

benefiting from such programs. It also enforces existing statutes to prevent minority or lowincome communities from being subjected to disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects. EO 13045 (US-NARA 2008), “Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”, acknowledges that children may suffer 

disproportionately from environmental health and safety risks because of their developmental 

stage, greater metabolic activity levels, and behavior patterns, as compared to adults. The EO (to 

the extent permitted by law and consistent with the agency’s mission) required each Federal 

agency to identify, assess, and address environmental health risks and safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. Each alternative was analyzed with respect to EO 12898 and 

13045. Based on the information submitted by the applicant and assessed by APHIS, Event 3272 

corn is not significantly different than conventional corn and has successfully completed FDA 

consultation for food and feed use. Therefore, Event 3272 corn is not expected to have a 

disproportionate adverse effect on minorities, low-income populations, or children. 

EO 13112 (US-NARA 2008), “Invasive Species”, states that Federal agencies take action to 

prevent the introduction of invasive species, to provide for their control, and to minimize the 

economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Both non-GE and 

GE corn varieties that have been granted nonregulated status are widely grown in the U.S. Based 

on historical experience with corn and the data submitted by the applicant and assessed by 

APHIS, Event 3272 corn plants are very similar in fitness characteristics to other corn varieties 

currently grown and are not expected to become weedy or invasive. (USDA-APHIS 2009) . 

EO 13186 (US-NARA 2008), “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”, 

states that Federal agencies taking actions that have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative 

effect on migratory bird populations are directed to develop and implement, within 2 years, a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife Service that shall promote 

the conservation of migratory bird populations. Data submitted by the applicant has shown no 

difference in compositional and nutritional quality of Event 3272 corn compared to conventional 

corn, apart from the presence of AMY797E and PMI. Syngenta also conducted feeding 

experiments on broiler chickens to evaluate the effects of AMY797E on birds (page 94 of 

petition and page 6 of response letter). The applicant reported no harmful effects to chickens 

from a diet extremely high in AMY797E. Moreover, given that diets high in AMY797E do not 

result in harmful effects, the diets of migratory birds that occasionally forage in corn fields are 

unlikely to contain high amounts of AMY797E as corn availability is limited by seed 

germination and harvest. Based on APHIS’ assessment of Event 3272 corn it is unlikely that 

granting nonregulated status to this corn variety will have a negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. 
61

INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

EO 12114 (US-NARA 2008), “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions”, 

requires Federal officials to take into consideration any potential environmental effects outside 

the U.S., its territories, and possessions that result from actions being taken. APHIS has given 

this due consideration and does not expect a significant environmental impact outside the U.S. 

should nonregulated status be granted to Event 3272 corn. It should be noted that all the 

considerable, existing national and international regulatory authorities and phytosanitary regimes 

that currently apply to introductions of new corn cultivars internationally, apply equally to those 

covered by an APHIS determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340. Any 

international traffic of Event 3272 corn subsequent to a determination of nonregulated 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). 

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” (IPP 2008); 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 nations that have signed or 

acceded to the Convention (177 countries as of February 2011). 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 an existing standard, International Standard for 

Phytosanitary Measure No. 11 (ISPM-11, Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests). The standard 

acknowledges that all LMOs will not present a pest risk and that a determination needs to be 

made early in the PRA for importation as to whether the LMO poses a potential pest risk 

resulting from the genetic modification. APHIS pest risk assessment procedures for genetically 

engineered organisms are consistent with the guidance developed under the IPPC. In addition, 

issues that may relate to commercialization and transboundary movement of particular 

agricultural commodities produced through biotechnology are being addressed in other 

international forums and through national regulations. 

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

Biological Diversity (CBD) that established a framework for the safe transboundary movement, 

with respect to the environment and biodiversity, of LMOs, which includes those modified 

through biotechnology. The Protocol came into force on September 11, 2003, and 160 countries 

are Parties to it as of February 2011 (CBD 2011) . Although the U.S. is not a party to the CBD, 

and therefore not a party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, U.S. 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 
62

decisions to the Biosafety Clearinghouse database on domestic use of LMOs for FFP that may be 

subject to transboundary movement. To facilitate compliance with obligations to this protocol, 

the U.S. Government has developed a website that provides the status of all regulatory reviews 

completed for different uses of bioengineered products (NBII 2008). These data will be 

available to the Biosafety Clearinghouse. APHIS continues to work toward harmonization of 

biosafety and biotechnology consensus documents, guidelines, and regulations, including within 

the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), which includes Mexico, Canada, 

and the U.S., and within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. NAPPO 

has completed three modules of a standard for the Importation and Release into the Environment 

of Transgenic Plants in NAPPO Member Countries (NAPPO 2008). APHIS also participates in 

the North American Biotechnology Initiative (NABI), a forum for information exchange and 

cooperation on agricultural biotechnology issues for the U.S., Mexico and Canada. In addition, 

bilateral discussions on biotechnology regulatory issues are held regularly with other countries 

including: Argentina, Brazil, Japan, China, and Korea. 

COMPLIANCE WITH CLEAN WATER ACT AND CLEAN AIR ACT

This Environmental Assessment evaluated the changes in corn production due to the unrestricted 

use of Event 3272 corn. Event 3272 corn will not lead to the increased production of corn in 

U.S. agriculture. There is no expected change in water use due to the production of Event 3272 

corn, nor is it expected that air quality will change to do the production of Event 3272 corn. If 

APHIS grants nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn, APHIS will be fully compliant with the 

Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

V. Listing of Agencies and Persons Consulted

Dr. Levis Handley

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

APHIS

Rhey Solomon

E&T Solutions, LLP

Rhonda Solomon

Environmental Services

APHIS

Dr. Michael Watson

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

APHIS

Office of General Counsel

USDA
63

VI. References

AOSCA. 2004. Crop certification standards. Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies.

AOSCA. 2008. 99% Non-GMO corn grain program requirements Association of Official Seed 

Certifying Agencies. http://www.identitypreserved.com/handbook/aoscanongmocorn.htm. Date Accessed: September 8, 2008.

Aylor, D. E., N. P. Schultes, and E. J. Shields. 2003. An aerobiological framework for assessing 

cross-pollination in maize. Agricultural and Forestry Meteorology. 119:111-129.

Bitzer, R. J., M. E. Rice, C. D. Pilcher, C. L. Pilcher, and W.-K. Frankie Lam. 2005. Biodiversity 

and community structure of epadaphic and euedaphic springtails (Collembola) in 

transgenic rootworm Bt corn. Environmental Entomology. 34:1346-1376.

Bosnic, A. C. and C. J. Swanton. 1997. Influence of Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) time 

of emergence and density of corn (Zea mays). Weed Science. 45:276-282.

Brooks, D. R., D. A. Bohan, G. T. Champion, A. J. Haughton, C. Hawes, M. S. Heard, S. J. 

Clark, A. M. Dewar, L. G. Firbank, J. N. Perry, P. Rothery, R. J. Scott, I. P. Woiwood, C. 

Birchall, M. P. Skellern, J. H. Walker, P. Baker, D. Bell, E. L. Browne, A. J. G. Dewar, 

C. M. Fairfax, B. H. Garner, L. A. Haylock, S. L. Horne, S. E. Hulmes, N. S. Mason, L. 

R. Norton, P. Nuttall, Z. Randle, M. J. Rossall, R. J. N. Sands, E. J. Singer, and M. J. 

Walker. 2003. Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified 

herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. I. Soil-surface-active invertebrates. 

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 358:1847-1862.

Brown, W. L., M. S. Zuber, L. L. Darrah, and D. V. Glover. 1985. Origin, Adaptation, and Types 

of Corn. National Corn Handbook. NCH-10. Iowa State University. 

CBD. 2008. The Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety. Convention on Biological Diversity. 

http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/. Date Accessed: February 2011.

Chen, M., J.-Z. Zhao, H. L. Collins, E. D. Earle, J. Cao, and A. M. Shelton. 2008. A critical 

assessment of the effects of Bt transgenic plants on parasitoids. PLoS ONE. 3:e2284. 

doi:2210.1371/journal.pone.0002284.

Denicoff, M. 2007. Ethanol transportation backgrounder. Agricultural Marketing Service. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Di Giovanni, F., P. G. Kevan, and M. E. Nasr. 1995. The variability in settling velocities of some 

pollen and spores. Grana. 34:39-44.

Dolbeer, R. A. 1990. Ornithology and integrated pest management: red-winged blackbirds 

Agleaius phoeniceus and corn. The International Journal of Avian Science. 132:309-322.

EIA. 2007. Energy and economic impacts of implementing both a 25-percent renewable portfolio 

standard and a 25-percent renewable fuel standard by 2025. Energy Information 

Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, United States Department 

of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Erickson, B. and J. Lowenberg-DeBoer. 2005. Weighing the returns of rotated vs. continuous 

corn. Purdue University.

Fausay, J. C., J. J. Kells, S. M. Swinton, and K. A. Renner. 1997. Giant foxtail interference in 

non-irrigated corn. Weed Science. 45:256-260.

FDA. 2000. Action levels for poisonous or deleterious substances in human food and animal 

feed. United States Food and Drug Administration.
64

Freese, B. and M. Mayet. 2006. Comments on Syngenta's application for commodity clearance 

of genetically modified maize, Event 3272. Center for Food Safety and African Centre 

for Biosafety. http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/portal/DOCS/comments_maize3272.pdf. 

Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

Garcia, A., K. Kalscheur, A. Hippen, D. Schingoethe, and K. Rosentrater. 2008. Mycotoxins in 

corn distillers grains: a concern in ruminants? ExEx4038, South Dakota Cooperative 

Extension Service.

Giannessi, L. P. 2005. Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest 

Management Science. 61:241-245.

Hallauer, A. R. ed. 2001. Specialty corns. CRC press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Hansen Jesse, L. C. and J. J. Obrycki. 2000. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal 

effects on the monarch butterfly. Oecologia. 125:241-248.

Hart, C. E. 2006. Feeding the ethanol boom: where will the corn come from? Iowa Ag Review. 

12:3-5.

Haughton, A. J., G. T. Champion, C. Hawes, M. S. Heard, D. R. Brooks, D. A. Bohan, S. J. 

Clark, A. M. Dewar, L. G. Firbank, J. L. Osborne, J. N. Perry, P. Rothery, D. B. Roy, R. 

J. Scott, I. P. Woiwod, C. Birchall, M. P. Skellern, J. H. Walker, P. Baker, E. L. Browne, 

A. J. G. Dewar, B. H. Garner, L. A. Haylock, S. L. Horne, N. S. Mason, R. J. N. Sands, 

and M. J. Walker. 2003. Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically 

modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. II. Within-field epigeal and 

aerial arthropods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 

358:1863-1877.

Hawes, C., A. J. Haughton, J. L. Osborne, D. B. Roy, S. J. Clark, J. N. Perry, P. Rothery, D. A. 

Bohan, D. R. Brooks, G. T. Champion, A. M. Dewar, M. S. Heard, I. P. Woiwod, R. E. 

Daniels, M. W. Young, A. M. Parish, R. J. Scott, L. G. Firbank, and G. R. Squire. 2003. 

Responses of plants and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in 

the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. 

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 358:1899-1913.

Heap, I. 2008. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Weed Science. Available 

www.weedscience.com. Access date: August 28, 2008.

Henry, C., D. Morgan, R. Weeks, R. E. Daniels, and C. Boffey. 2003. Farm scale evaluations of 

GM crops: monitoring gene flow from GM crops to non-GM equivalent crops in the 

vicinity––Part I. Forage maize., Central Science Laboratory Sand Hutton, Centre for 

Ecology and Hydrology. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/pdf/epg_1-5-

138.pdf. Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

Hoffman, L., A. Baker, L. Foreman, and E. Young. 2007. Feed grains backgrounder. FDS-07c01, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Hoffman, L., A Baker. 2010. Market Issues and Prospects for U.S. Distillers' Grains Supply, 

Use, and Price Relationships. USDA Economic Research Service. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FDS/2010/11Nov/FDS10K01/FDS10K01.pdf. 

Date Accessed: February 7, 2011. 

Houba, R., D. J. Heederik, G. Doekes, and P. E. van Run. 1996. Exposure-sensitization 

relationship for alpha-amylase allergens in the baking industry. American Journal of 

Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 154:130-136.

Houba, R., P. E. van Run, G. Doekes, D. J. Heederik, and J. Spithoven. 1997. Airborne levels of 

alpha-amylase allergens in bakeries. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 

99:286-292.
65

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

Life Sciences Institute. http://www.cropcomposition.org/. Access date: August 28, 2008.

IPP. 2008. Official web site for the International Plant Protection Convention. International 

Phytosanitary Portal. https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp. Date Accessed: August 28, 

2008.

Janeček, Š., E. Lévêque, A. Belarbi, and B. Haye. 1999. Close evolutionary relatedness of α -

amylases from archaea and plants. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 48:421-426.

Jarosz, N., B. Loubet, B. Durand, A. McCartney, X. Foueillassar and L. Huber. 2003. Field 

measurements of airborne concentration and deposition rate of maize pollen. 

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 119:37–51. 

Jemison, J. and M. E. Vayda. 2001. Cross pollination from genetically engineered corn: wind 

transport and seed source. AgBioForum 4:87-92. 

Jones, M. D. and J. S. Brooks. 1950. Effectiveness of distance and border rows preventing 

outcrossing in corn. Oklahoma Agricultural Experimental Station.

Kegley, S. E., B. R. Hill, S. Orme, and A. H. Choi. 2008. PAN Pesticide Database. Pesticide 

Action Network, North America (San Francisco, CA). http:www.pesticideinfo.org. 

Access date: September 10, 2008.

Kosaki, H., J. D. Wolt, and J. R. Coats. 2006. Environmental studies on the fate of pharma 

proteins produced in transgenic corn.in North America 27th annual meeting, Society of 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 5–9 November 2006, Montre ́ al, Que ́ bec, 

Canada., Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Krueger, J. E. 2007. If your farm is organic, must it be GMO free? Organic farmers, genetically 

modified organisms and the law. Farmer's Legal Action Group, Inc, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Kuepper, G. 2002. Organic field corn production. National Sustainable Agricultural Information 

Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/fieldcorn.html. Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

Kuepper, G., H. Born, and L. Gegner. 2007. Organic systems plan (OSP) templates for certifiers. 

National Sustainable Agricultural Information Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attrapub/PDF/OSPtemplates.pdf. Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

Kung, L., J. P. Bracht, A. O. Hession, and J. Y. Tavares. 1998. High-sulfate induced PEM in 

cattle examined. Feedstuffs. 72:12-17.

Lal, R. 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environment International. 29:437-450.

Lal, R. and J. P. Bruce. 1999. The potential of world cropland soils to sequester C and mitigate 

the greenhouse effect. . Environmental Science & Policy. 2:177-185.

Lévêque, E., Š. Janeček, B. Haye, and A. Belarbi. 2000. Thermophilic archaeal amylolytic 

enzymes. Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 26:3-14.

Ma, B. L. 2005. Frequency of pollen drift in genetically engineered corn. 

http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/feb0502.htm.

Ma, B. L., K. D. Subedi and L. M. Reid. 2004. Extent of cross-fertilization in maize by pollens 

from neighboring transgenic hybrid. Crop Science. 44:1273-1282. 

Marshall, E. J. P., V. K. Brown, N. D. Boatman, P. J. W. Lutman, G. R. Squire, and L. K. Ward. 

2003. The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. European 

weed research society. 43:77-89.

Marvier, M., C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, and P. Karieva. 2007. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt 

cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science. 316:1475-1477.

Marx, M. C., E. Kandeler, M. Wood, N. Wermbter, and S. C. Jarvis. 2005. Exploring the 

enzymatic landscape: distribution and kinetics of hydroletic enzymes in soil particle-size 

fractions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 37:35-48.
66

McLaren, J. 2009. Water utilization: an analytical white paper. National Corn Growers' 

Association. StrathKirn Inc. http://ncga.com/files/pdf/WaterUse6-24.pdf (Accessed 

February 7, 2011) 

Morris, M. and A. Hill. 2006. Ethanol opportunities and questions. National Sustainable 

Agriculture Information Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ethanol.pdf. Date 

Accessed: September 1, 2008.

Morris, M. L. 1998. Overview of the world maize economy.in M. L. Morris, editor. Maize seed 

industries in developing countries. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. and CIMMYT, Int.

Morse, D., D. D. Head, C. J. Wllcox, H. H. Van Horn, C. D. HIssem, and J. Harris, B. 1992. 

Effects of concentration of dietary phosphorus on amount and route of excretion. Journal 

of Dairy Science. 75:3039-3049.

Mosier, N. S. and K. Ileleji. 2006. How fuel ethanol is made from corn. Purdue Extension, 

Purdue University.

NAPPO. 2008. NAPPO approved standards. North American Plant Protection Organization. 

http://www.nappo.org/Standards/Std-e.html. Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

NBII. 2008. United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website. National 

Biological Information Infrastructure, Center for Biological Informatics, United States 

Geological Survey. http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/. Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

NCAT. 2003. NCAT's organic crops workbook: a guide to sustainable and allowed practices. 

National Center for Appropriate Technology. http://attra.ncat.org/attrapub/PDF/cropsworkbook.pdf. Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

Neilsen, B. 2005. Symptoms of deer corn damage. Purdue University.

OECD. 2003. Consensus document on the biology of Zea mays subsp. mays (maize). 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.

Olempska-Beer, Z. S., R. I. Merker, M. D. Ditto, and M. J. DiNovi. 2006. Food-processing 

enzymes from recombinant microorganisms - a review. Regulatory Toxicology and 

Pharmacology. 45:144-158.

Olson, R. A. and D. H. Sander. 1988. Corn Production. Pages 639-686 in G. F. Sprague and J. 

W. Dudley, editors. Corn and corn improvement. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 

Crop Science Society of America, Inc., and Soil Science Society of America, Inc., 

Madison, WI.

Pariza, M. W. and E. A. Johnson. 2001. Evaluating the safety of microbial enzyme preparations 

used in food processing: update for a new century. Regulatory Toxicology and 

Pharmacology. 33:173-186.

Patterson, M. P. and L. B. Best. 1996. Bird abundance and nesting success in Iowa CRP fields: 

the important of vegetation structure and composition. American Midland Naturalist. 

135:153-167.

Pilcher, C. D., M. E. Rice, and J. J. Obrycki. 2005. Impact of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis

corn and crop phenology on five nontarget arthropods. Environmental Entomology. 

34:1302-1316.

Pollak, L. M. and P. J. White. 1995. Corn as a food source in the United States. I. Historical and 

current perspectives. Cereal foods world. 40:749-754.

Ponsard, S., A. P. Gutierrez, and N. J. Mills. 2002. Effect of Bt-toxin (Cry1Ac) in transgenic 

cotton on the adult longevity of four heteropteran predators. Environmental Entomology. 

31:1197-1205.
67

Rausch, K. D. and R. L. Belyea. 2006. The future of coproducts from corn processing. Applied 

Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 128:47-86.

Raynor, G. S., E. C. Ogden, and J. V. Hayes. 1972. Dispersion and deposition of corn pollen 

from experimental sources. Agronomy Journal. 64:420-427.

RFA. 2007. Ethanol Industry Outlook 2007. Renewable Fuels Association. 

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pdf/outlook/RFA_Outlook_2007.pdf. Date Accessed: 

September 1, 2008.

Riddle, J. A. 2004. Best management practices for producers of GMO and non-GMO crops. 

University of Minnesota, School of Agriculture.

Ridley, W. P., R. D. Shillito, I. Coats, H.-Y. Steiner, M. Shawgo, A. Phillips, P. Dussold, and L. 

Kurtyak. 2004. Development of the International Life Sciences Institue Crop 

Composition Database. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 17:423-438.

Romeis, J., A. Dutton, and F. Bigler. 2004. Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1AB) has no direct 

effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: 

Chrysopidae). Journal of Insect Physiology. 50:175–183.

Romeis, J., M. Meissle, and F. Bigler. 2006. Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringensis

toxins and biological control. Nature Biotechnology. 63:63-71.

Rondon, M. R., P. R. August, A. D. Bettermann, S. F. Brady, T. H. Grossman, M. R. Liles, K. A. 

Loiacono, B. A. Lynch, I. A. MacNeil, C. Minor, C. L. Tiong, M. Gilman, M. S. 

Osburne, J. Clardy, J. Handelsman, and R. M. Goodman. 2000. Cloning the soil 

metagenome: a strategy for accessing the genetic and functional diversity of uncultured 

microorganisms. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 66:2541-2547.

Rooney, L. W. and S. O. Serna-Saldivar. 1987. Food uses of whole corn and dry-milled 

fractions. Pages 399-429 in S. A. Watson and P. E. Ramstad, editors. Corn: chemistry 

and technology American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc. , St. Paul, MN.

Rothstein, D. M., P. E. Devlin, and R. L. Cate. 1986. Expression of α-amylase in Bacillus 

licheniformis. Journal of Bacteriology. 168:839-842.

Roy, D. B., D. A. Bohan, A. J. Haughton, M. O. Hill, J. L. Osborne, S. J. Clark, J. N. Perry, P. 

Rothery, R. J. Scott, D. R. Brooks, G. T. Champion, C. Hawes, M. S. Heard, and L. G. 

Firbank. 2003. Invertebrates and vegetation of field margins adjacent to crops subject to 

contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified 

herbicide-tolerant crops. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 

358:1879-1898.

Sampson, H. A. 1999. Food allergy. Part 1: immunopathogenesis and clinical disorders. Journal 

of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 103:717-728.

Sanvido, O., F. Widmer, M. Winzeler, B. Streit, E. Szerencsits, and F. Bigler. 2008. Definition 

and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize cultivation. Transgenic 

Research. 17:317-335.

Sawyer, J. 2007. Nitrogen fertilization for corn following corn. IC-498 Iowa State University.

Schnepf, R. 2006. Agriculture-based renewable energy production. Congressional Research 

Service, Washington, D. C.

Shapouri, H. and P. Gallagher. 2005. USDA's 2002 ethanol cost-of-production survey. AER No. 

841, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of 

Energy Policy and New Uses.

Shaw, R. H. 1988. Climate requirement. Pages 609-638 in G. F. Sprague and J. W. Dudley, 

editors. Corn and corn improvement. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science 

Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.
68

Singh, V., C. J. Batie, G. W. Aux, K. D. Rausch, and C. Miller. 2006. Dry-grind processing of 

corn with endogenous liquefaction enzymes. Cereal Chemistry. 83:317-320.

Sisterson, M. S., R. W. Biggs, C. Olson, Y. Carriεre, T. J. Dennehy, and B. E. Tabashnik. 2004. 

Arthropod abundance and diversity in Bt and non-Bt cotton fields. Environmental 

Entomology. 33:921-929.

Stallman, H. R. and L. B. Best. 1996. Small-mammal use of an experimental strip intercropping 

system in northeastern Iowa. American Midland Naturalist. 135:226-273.

Steffey, K. L., M. E. Rice, J. All, D. A. Andow, M. E. Gray, and J. W. van Duyn. 1999. 

Handbook of corn insects. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland.

Sterner, R. T., B. E. Petersen, S. W. Gaddis, K. L. Tope, and D. J. Poss. 2003. Impacts of small 

mammals and birds on low-tillage, dryland crops. Crop Protection. 22:595-602.

Stockton, M., R. Wilson, and F. Colburn. 2007. Continuous corn or a corn/soybean rotation? , 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources.

Taylor, S. L. and S. L. Hefle. 2001. Will genetically engineered food be allergenic? Current 

Reviews of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 103:765-771.

Thomas, T. 2007. It's still all about yields: how can the seed sector respond to biofuels? Seed 

world. February 2007:26-27.

Thomison, P. no date. Specialty Corns: waxy, high-amylose, high-oil, and high-lysine corn. 

AGF-112-91. The Ohio State University Extension.

Torres, J. B. and J. R. Ruberson. 2005. Canopy- and ground-dwelling predatory arthropods in 

commerical Bt and non-Bt cotton fields: patterns and mechanisms. Environmental 

Entomology. 34:1242-1256.

Triplett, G. B., Jr. and W. A. Dick. 2008. No-tillage crop production: A revolution in agriculture. 

Agronomy Journal. 100:S153-S165.

US-EPA. 2008. Climate Change. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C.

US-NARA. 2008. Executive Orders disposition tables index. United States National Archives 

and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland.

USDA-APHIS. 2009. Plant pest risk assessment for Event 3272 corn. USDA APHIS 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland.

USDA-ERS. 2005. Farm business and household survey data: customized data summaries from 

AMRS (Agricultural Resource Management Survey) – crop production practices., United 

States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ARMS/app/Crop.aspx. Access date: August 22, 2008.

USDA-ERS. 2008. Feeds grains database. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains/. Access date: August 25, 

2008.

USDA-ERS. 2011. Feeds grains database. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains/. Access date: February 2011.

USDA-FSA. 2007. Conservation Reserve Program: summary and enrollment statistics FY 2007. 

United State Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency.

USDA-FSA. 2007. Conservation Reserve Program: summary and enrollment statistics FY 2009. 

United State Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency.USDA-NASS. 2001. 

Acreage. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. 
69

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000. 

Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

USDA-NASS. 2005. Acreage. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000. 

Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

USDA-NASS. 2006. Acreage. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000. 

Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

USDA-NASS. 2007a. Acreage. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000. 

Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

USDA-NASS. 2007b. Agricultural Prices: 2006 Summary. United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Survey.

USDA-NASS. 2008a. Acreage. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000. 

Date Accessed: September 1, 2008.

USDA-NASS. 2008b. Agricultural Prices: 2007 Summary. United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Survey.

USDA-NASS. 2009a. Acreage. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000. 

Date Accessed: February 16, 2010.

USDA-NASS. 2009b. Crop Values 2008 Summary. United States Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

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

Date Accessed: February 16, 2010.

USDA-NASS. 2010a. 2007 Census of Agriculture: Organic Production Survey (2008). United 

States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Survey. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Organics/

USDA-NASS. 20010b. Acreage. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000. 

Date Accessed: February 7, 2011.

USDA-NASS. 2011. Agricultural Prices. United States Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Survey. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriPric/AgriPric-01-31-2011.pdf, Accessed 

February 7, 2011

USGC. 2006. Value-enhanced corn report 2005/2006. U.S. Grains Council. 

http://www.grains.org/images/stories/technical_publications/USGC_Report__Final__04_

28_06.pdf Date Accessed: February 7, 2011.

Vercauteren, K. C. and S. E. Hygnstrom. 1993. White-tailed deer home range characteristics and 

impacts relative to field corn damage. . Pages 217-219 in Great Plains Wildlife Damage 
70

Control Workshop. Internet Center for Wildlife Management, University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln.

Weber, W. E., T. Bringezu, I. Broer, J. Eder, and F. Holz. 2007. Coexistence between GM and 

non-GM maize crops––tested in 2004 at the field scale level (Erprobungsanbau 2004) 

Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 193:79-92.

Westgate ME, J. Lizaso and W. Batchelor. 2003. Quantitative relationship between pollen-shed 

density and grain yield in maize. Crop Science. 43:934-942. 

White, P. J. and L. M. Pollak. 1995. Corn as a food source in the United States. II: Processes, 

products, composition, and nutritive values. Cereal foods world. 40:756-762.

Whitlow, L. W. and J. Hagler, W. M. 2005. Mycotoxins: a review of dairy concerns.in MidSouth Ruminant Nutrition Conference.

Wolfenbarger, L. L., S. E. Naranjo, J. G. Lundgren, R. J. Bitzer, and L. S. Watrud. 2008. Bt crop 

effects on functional guilds of non-target arthropods: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 

3:e2118. doi:2110.1371/journal.pone.0002118.

Wolt, J. D. and S. Karaman. 2007. Estimated environmental loads of alpha-amylase from 

transgenic high-amylase maize. Biomass and Bioenergy. 31:831-835.

Yu, S.-M., Y.-C. Lee, S.-C. Fang, M.-T. Chan, S.-F. Hwa, and L.-F. Liu. 1996. Sugars act as 

signal molecules and osmotica to regulate the expression of α-amylase genes and 

metabolic activities in germinating cereal grains. Plant Molecular Biology. 30:1277-1289.
71

Appendix A. Biotech Seed Products Available for the 

2011 Planting Season1,2,3 

PRODUCT REGISTRANT 

TRADE NAME CHARACTERISTIC EVENT JAPAN APPROVED 

EU FOOD 

APPROVAL 

EU 

PROCESSED 

FEED 

APPROVAL 

Syngenta AgrisureTM CB/LL Cry1Ab, Corn Borer

Glufosinate herbicide 

Tolerance

Bt11 Yes Yes Yes 

Agrisure VipteraTM 3110 Vip3A, Cry1Ab, 

European and 

Southwestern

Corn Borers, Southern 

Cornstalk Borer,

Fall and Beet 

Armyworm,

Black and Western 

Bean Cutworm,

Sugarcane Borer, 

Common Stalk borer 

and

Dingy Cutworm 

protection

Glyphosate tolerance

Glufosinate tolerance 

MIR162+Bt11+GA21 Yes No XVII. No 

Agrisure VipteraTM 3111 Vip3A, Cry1Ab, 

European and 

Southwestern 

Corn Borers, Southern 

cornstalk borer,

Fall and Beet 

armyworm,

Black and Western 

Bean Cutworm,

Sugarcane borer,

Western, Northern and 

Mexican

corn rootworm, 

Common stalk borer

and Dingy cutworm 

protection

MIR162+Bt11+GA21+MIR604 Yes No No 
72

Glyphosate tolerance 

Glufosinate tolerance 

DowAgrosciences Pioneer HiBred

Herculex® I

Cry1F, Western Bean 

Cutworm, Corn Borer, 

Black Cutworm and 

Fall Armyworm 

resistance Glufosinate 

herbicide tolerance.

TC1507 Yes Yes Yes 

Monsanto YieldGard® Corn 

Borer

Cry1Ab, European and 

Southwestern

Corn Borers, 

Sugarcane Borer and 

Southern Cornstalk 

Borer protection.

Mon810 Yes Yes Yes 

Monsanto YieldGard® Corn 

Borer with

Roundup Ready® Corn 2

Cry1Ab, European and 

Southwestern

Southwestern Corn 

Borers, Sugarcane 

Borer

and Southern Cornstalk 

Borer protection. 

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

Mon810+NK603 Yes Yes Yes 

Monsanto YieldGard® 

Rootworm

with Roundup Ready® Corn 2

Cry3Bb1, Western, 

Northern and Mexican

Corn Rootworm 

Protection.

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

Mon863+NK603 Yes Yes Yes 

Monsanto YieldGard® 

Rootworm 

Cry3Bb1, Western, 

Northern and Mexican, 

Corn Rootworm 

protection. Glyphosate 

herbicide tolerance.

Mon863 Yes Yes Yes 

Monsanto Roundup Ready® 

Corn 2

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

NK603 Yes Yes Yes 
73

Bayer CropScience 

LibertyLink®

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance.

XVIII. T25 Yes Yes Yes 

Monsanto YieldGard® Plus Cry1Ab, Cry3Bb1, 

European and 

Southwestern, Corn 

Borers, Sugarcane 

Borer, Southern 

Cornstalk Borer, , and 

Western, Northern and 

Mexican Corn 

Rootworm protection. 

Mon810+Mon863 Yes Yes Yes 

Monsanto YieldGard® Plus 

with Roundup Ready® Corn 2

Cry1Ab, Cry3Bb1, 

European and 

Southwestern Corn 

Borers, Sugarcane 

Borer, Southern 

Cornstalk Borer, and 

Western, Northern and 

Mexican Corn 

Rootworm protection. 

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

XIX. Mon810+Mon863+NK603 XX. Yes XXI. Yes XXII. Yes 

DowAgrosciences Pioneer HiBred Herculex® I

Monsanto Roundup Ready® 

Corn 2

Cry1F, Western Bean 

Cutworm, Corn Borer, 

Black Cutworm and Fall 

Armyworm resistance.

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance.

TC1507+NK603 Yes Yes Yes 

Syngenta Agrisure® GT Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

SYTGA21 Yes Yes Yes 

Syngenta Agrisure® 

GT/CB/LL

Cry1AB, European and 

Southwestern Corn 

borer protection

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance.

Bt11+GA21 Yes Yes Yes 
74

Dow AgroSciences Pioneer HiBred Herculex® RWCry34/35Ab1, Western 

Corn Rootworm, 

Northern Corn 

Rootworm protection. 

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance.

DAS59122-7 Yes Yes Yes 

Dow AgroSciences Pioneer HiBred Herculex® XtraCry1F, Western Bean 

Cutworm, Corn Borer, 

Black Cutworm and Fall 

Armyworm resistance 

Northern Corn 

Rootworm. Western 

Corn Rootworm 

protection.

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance.

TC1507+DAS59122-7 Yes Yes Yes 

Dow AgroSciences Pioneer HiBred

Herculex® RW

Monsanto Roundup Ready® 

Corn 2

Cry34/35Ab1, Western 

Corn Rootworm, 

Northern Corn

Rootworm protection.

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance.

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

. 

DAS59122-7+NK603 Yes Yes Yes 

Dow AgroSciences Pioneer HiBred Herculex® Xtra

Monsanto Roundup® Corn 2

Cry1F, Western Bean 

Cutworm, Corn Borer, 

Black Cutworm and Fall 

Armyworm resistance.

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance.

Cry34/35Ab1, Western 

Corn Rootworm 

Northern Corn 

Rootworm Protection.

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

TC1507+DAS59122-7+NK603 Yes Yes Yes 

Monsanto YieldGard VTTM 

Rootworm/RR2®

Cry3Bb1, Western, 

Northern, and Mexican 

Corn Rootworm 

protection.

Mon88017 Yes Yes Yes 
75

Glyphosate Herbicide 

Tolerance.

Monsanto YieldGard VTTM 

Triple 

Cry1Ab, Cry3Bb1, 

European and 

Southwestern Corn 

Borer, Sugarcane Borer 

and Southern Cornstalk 

Borer and Western, 

Northern, and Mexican 

Corn Rootworm 

protection.

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance. 

Mon810+Mon88017 Yes Yes Yes 

XXIII. Syngenta Agrisure® 

RW

XXIV. Modified 

Cry3A, 

Protection of 

Western, 

Northern and 

Mexican Corn 

Rootworm. 

XXV. MIR604 Yes Yes Yes 

Syngenta® GT/RW Modified Cry3A, 

Protection of Western, 

Northern and Mexican 

Corn Rootworm

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance

MIR604+SYTGA21 Yes No No 

Syngenta Agrisure® 

CB/LL/RW

Cry1Ab, Corn Borer 

protection

Modified Cry3A, 

Protection of Western, 

Northern and Mexican 

Corn Rootworm

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance.

Bt11+MIR604 Yes No No 

Syngenta Agrisure® 3000GT XXVI. Cry1Ab, Corn 

Borer 

protection. 

Modified 

Cry3A, 

Protection of 

Western, 

XXVII. SYTGA21+Bt11+MIR604 Yes No No 
76

Northern and 

Mexican Corn 

Rootworm.

Glufosinate 

herbicide 

tolerance. 

Glyphosate 

tolerance. 

Monsanto GenuityTM VT 

Double PROTM

Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, 

European and 

Southwestern Corn 

Borers, Sugarcane 

Borer, Southern 

Cornstalk Borer, Corn 

Earworm, and Fall 

Armyworm protection.

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

Mon89034+NK603 Yes No No 

Monsanto GenuityTM VT Triple 

PROTM

Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, 

Cry3Bb1, European 

and Southwestern Corn 

Borers, Sugarcane 

Borer, Southern 

Cornstalk Borer, Corn 

Earworm, Fall 

Armyworm, Western 

Corn Rootworm, 

Northern Corn 

Rootworm, and 

Mexican Corn 

Rootworm protection.

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance.

Mon88017+Mon89034 Yes XXVIII. No XXIX. No 

Monsanto 

GenuityTMSmartStaxTM

DowAgrosciences 

SmartStaxTM 

Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, 

Cry1F, Cry3Bb1, 

Cry34/35Ab1 Western, 

Northern, and Mexican 

Corn Rootworms, 

European and 

Southwestern Corn 

Borers, Sugarcane 

Borer, Southern 

Cornstalk Borer, 

Western Bean and 

Black Cutworms, Corn 

Earworm, Fall 
77

Armyworm protection. 

Glyphosate herbicide 

tolerance. 

Glufosinate herbicide 

tolerance. 

1

This list is representative of available products but may not include all corn biotechnology hybrids currently 

available. 

2 All of the hybrids listed have full food and feed approval in the United States.

3 Not all varieties are approved for all export market uses.

References

NCGA. 2008. Approval Status of Biotech Corn Hybrids: Know Before you GrowSM. 

National Corn Growers Association, St. Louis, Missouri (http://www.ncga.com/know-yougrow, ). Accessed on February, 2010. 
78

Appendix B. Corn-producing counties in the 28

states that have corn ethanol facilities 

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Arizona\Apache Iowa\Marion Missouri\Perry South Dakota\Grant

Arizona\Cochise Iowa\Marshall Missouri\Pettis South Dakota\Gregory

Arizona\Coconino Iowa\Mills Missouri\Phelps South Dakota\Haakon

Arizona\Gila Iowa\Mitchell Missouri\Pike South Dakota\Hamlin

Arizona\Graham Iowa\Monona Missouri\Platte South Dakota\Hand

Arizona\Greenlee Iowa\Monroe Missouri\Polk South Dakota\Hanson

Arizona\La Paz Iowa\Montgomery Missouri\Pulaski South Dakota\Harding

Arizona\Maricopa Iowa\Muscatine Missouri\Putnam South Dakota\Hughes

Arizona\Mohave Iowa\O'Brien Missouri\Ralls South Dakota\Hutchinson

Arizona\Navajo Iowa\Osceola Missouri\Randolph South Dakota\Hyde

Arizona\Pima Iowa\Page Missouri\Ray South Dakota\Jackson

Arizona\Pinal Iowa\Palo Alto Missouri\Reynolds South Dakota\Jerauld

Arizona\Santa Cruz Iowa\Plymouth Missouri\Ripley South Dakota\Jones

Arizona\Yavapai Iowa\Pocahontas Missouri\St. Charles South Dakota\Kingsbury

Arizona\Yuma Iowa\Polk Missouri\St. Clair South Dakota\Lake

California\Alameda Iowa\Pottawattamie Missouri\Ste. Genevieve South Dakota\Lawrence

California\Alpine Iowa\Poweshiek Missouri\St. Francois South Dakota\Lincoln

California\Amador Iowa\Ringgold Missouri\St. Louis South Dakota\Lyman

California\Butte Iowa\Sac Missouri\Saline South Dakota\McCook

California\Calaveras Iowa\Scott Missouri\Schuyler South Dakota\McPherson

California\Colusa Iowa\Shelby Missouri\Scotland South Dakota\Marshall

California\Contra Costa Iowa\Sioux Missouri\Scott South Dakota\Meade

California\Del Norte Iowa\Story Missouri\Shannon South Dakota\Mellette

California\El Dorado Iowa\Tama Missouri\Shelby South Dakota\Miner

California\Fresno Iowa\Taylor Missouri\Stoddard South Dakota\Minnehaha

California\Glenn Iowa\Union Missouri\Stone South Dakota\Moody

California\Humboldt Iowa\Van Buren Missouri\Sullivan South Dakota\Pennington

California\Imperial Iowa\Wapello Missouri\Taney South Dakota\Perkins

California\Inyo Iowa\Warren Missouri\Texas South Dakota\Potter

California\Kern Iowa\Washington Missouri\Vernon South Dakota\Roberts

California\Kings Iowa\Wayne Missouri\Warren South Dakota\Sanborn

California\Lake Iowa\Webster Missouri\Washington South Dakota\Shannon

California\Lassen Iowa\Winnebago Missouri\Wayne South Dakota\Spink

California\Los Angeles Iowa\Winneshiek Missouri\Webster South Dakota\Stanley

California\Madera Iowa\Woodbury Missouri\Worth South Dakota\Sully

California\Mariposa Iowa\Worth Missouri\Wright South Dakota\Todd

California\Merced Iowa\Wright Nebraska\Adams South Dakota\Tripp

California\Modoc Kansas\Allen Nebraska\Antelope South Dakota\Turner

California\Mono Kansas\Anderson Nebraska\Arthur South Dakota\Union

California\Monterey Kansas\Atchison Nebraska\Banner South Dakota\Walworth

California\Napa Kansas\Barber Nebraska\Blaine South Dakota\Yankton

California\Nevada Kansas\Barton Nebraska\Boone South Dakota\Ziebach

California\Orange Kansas\Bourbon Nebraska\Box Butte Tennessee\Anderson
79

State/County State/County State/County State/County

California\Placer Kansas\Brown Nebraska\Boyd Tennessee\Bedford

California\Plumas Kansas\Butler Nebraska\Brown Tennessee\Benton

California\Riverside Kansas\Chase Nebraska\Buffalo Tennessee\Bledsoe

California\Sacramento Kansas\Chautauqua Nebraska\Burt Tennessee\Blount

California\San Benito Kansas\Cherokee Nebraska\Butler Tennessee\Bradley

California\San 

Bernardino Kansas\Cheyenne Nebraska\Cass Tennessee\Campbell

California\San Diego Kansas\Clark Nebraska\Cedar Tennessee\Cannon

California\San 

Francisco Kansas\Clay Nebraska\Chase Tennessee\Carroll

California\San Joaquin Kansas\Cloud Nebraska\Cherry Tennessee\Carter

California\San Luis 

Obispo Kansas\Coffey Nebraska\Cheyenne Tennessee\Cheatham

California\San Mateo Kansas\Comanche Nebraska\Clay Tennessee\Chester

California\Santa 

Barbara Kansas\Cowley Nebraska\Colfax Tennessee\Claiborne

California\Santa Clara Kansas\Crawford Nebraska\Cuming Tennessee\Clay

California\Shasta Kansas\Decatur Nebraska\Custer Tennessee\Cocke

California\Sierra Kansas\Dickinson Nebraska\Dakota Tennessee\Coffee

California\Siskiyou Kansas\Doniphan Nebraska\Dawes Tennessee\Crockett

California\Solano Kansas\Douglas Nebraska\Dawson Tennessee\Cumberland

California\Sonoma Kansas\Edwards Nebraska\Deuel Tennessee\Davidson

California\Stanislaus Kansas\Elk Nebraska\Dixon Tennessee\Decatur

California\Sutter Kansas\Ellis Nebraska\Dodge Tennessee\DeKalb

California\Tehama Kansas\Ellsworth Nebraska\Douglas Tennessee\Dickson

California\Tulare Kansas\Finney Nebraska\Dundy Tennessee\Dyer

California\Tuolumne Kansas\Ford Nebraska\Fillmore Tennessee\Fayette

California\Ventura Kansas\Franklin Nebraska\Franklin Tennessee\Fentress

California\Yolo Kansas\Geary Nebraska\Frontier Tennessee\Franklin

California\Yuba Kansas\Gove Nebraska\Furnas Tennessee\Gibson

Colorado\Adams Kansas\Graham Nebraska\Gage Tennessee\Giles

Colorado\Alamosa Kansas\Grant Nebraska\Garden Tennessee\Grainger

Colorado\Arapahoe Kansas\Gray Nebraska\Garfield Tennessee\Greene

Colorado\Archuleta Kansas\Greeley Nebraska\Gosper Tennessee\Grundy

Colorado\Baca Kansas\Greenwood Nebraska\Grant Tennessee\Hamblen

Colorado\Bent Kansas\Hamilton Nebraska\Greeley Tennessee\Hamilton

Colorado\Boulder Kansas\Harper Nebraska\Hall Tennessee\Hancock

Colorado\Broomfield Kansas\Harvey Nebraska\Hamilton Tennessee\Hardeman

Colorado\Chaffee Kansas\Haskell Nebraska\Harlan Tennessee\Hardin

Colorado\Cheyenne Kansas\Hodgeman Nebraska\Hayes Tennessee\Hawkins

Colorado\Clear Creek Kansas\Jackson Nebraska\Hitchcock Tennessee\Haywood

Colorado\Conejos Kansas\Jefferson Nebraska\Holt Tennessee\Henderson

Colorado\Costilla Kansas\Jewell Nebraska\Hooker Tennessee\Henry

Colorado\Crowley Kansas\Johnson Nebraska\Howard Tennessee\Hickman

Colorado\Custer Kansas\Kearny Nebraska\Jefferson Tennessee\Houston

Colorado\Delta Kansas\Kingman Nebraska\Johnson Tennessee\Humphreys

Colorado\Denver Kansas\Kiowa Nebraska\Kearney Tennessee\Jackson
80

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Colorado\Dolores Kansas\Labette Nebraska\Keith Tennessee\Jefferson

Colorado\Douglas Kansas\Lane Nebraska\Keya Paha Tennessee\Johnson

Colorado\Eagle Kansas\Leavenworth Nebraska\Kimball Tennessee\Knox

Colorado\Elbert Kansas\Lincoln Nebraska\Knox Tennessee\Lake

Colorado\El Paso Kansas\Linn Nebraska\Lancaster Tennessee\Lauderdale

Colorado\Fremont Kansas\Logan Nebraska\Lincoln Tennessee\Lawrence

Colorado\Garfield Kansas\Lyon Nebraska\Logan Tennessee\Lewis

Colorado\Gilpin Kansas\McPherson Nebraska\Loup Tennessee\Lincoln

Colorado\Grand Kansas\Marion Nebraska\McPherson Tennessee\Loudon

Colorado\Gunnison Kansas\Marshall Nebraska\Madison Tennessee\McMinn

Colorado\Hinsdale Kansas\Meade Nebraska\Merrick Tennessee\McNairy

Colorado\Huerfano Kansas\Miami Nebraska\Morrill Tennessee\Macon

Colorado\Jackson Kansas\Mitchell Nebraska\Nance Tennessee\Madison

Colorado\Jefferson Kansas\Montgomery Nebraska\Nemaha Tennessee\Marion

Colorado\Kiowa Kansas\Morris Nebraska\Nuckolls Tennessee\Marshall

Colorado\Kit Carson Kansas\Morton Nebraska\Otoe Tennessee\Maury

Colorado\Lake Kansas\Nemaha Nebraska\Pawnee Tennessee\Meigs

Colorado\La Plata Kansas\Neosho Nebraska\Perkins Tennessee\Monroe

Colorado\Larimer Kansas\Ness Nebraska\Phelps Tennessee\Montgomery

Colorado\Las Animas Kansas\Norton Nebraska\Pierce Tennessee\Moore

Colorado\Lincoln Kansas\Osage Nebraska\Platte Tennessee\Morgan

Colorado\Logan Kansas\Osborne Nebraska\Polk Tennessee\Obion

Colorado\Mesa Kansas\Ottawa Nebraska\Red Willow Tennessee\Overton

Colorado\Mineral Kansas\Pawnee Nebraska\Richardson Tennessee\Perry

Colorado\Moffat Kansas\Phillips Nebraska\Rock Tennessee\Pickett

Colorado\Montezuma Kansas\Pottawatomie Nebraska\Saline Tennessee\Polk

Colorado\Montrose Kansas\Pratt Nebraska\Sarpy Tennessee\Putnam

Colorado\Morgan Kansas\Rawlins Nebraska\Saunders Tennessee\Rhea

Colorado\Otero Kansas\Reno Nebraska\Scotts Bluff Tennessee\Roane

Colorado\Ouray Kansas\Republic Nebraska\Seward Tennessee\Robertson

Colorado\Park Kansas\Rice Nebraska\Sheridan Tennessee\Rutherford

Colorado\Phillips Kansas\Riley Nebraska\Sherman Tennessee\Scott

Colorado\Pitkin Kansas\Rooks Nebraska\Sioux Tennessee\Sequatchie

Colorado\Prowers Kansas\Rush Nebraska\Stanton Tennessee\Sevier

Colorado\Pueblo Kansas\Russell Nebraska\Thayer Tennessee\Shelby

Colorado\Rio Blanco Kansas\Saline Nebraska\Thomas Tennessee\Smith

Colorado\Rio Grande Kansas\Scott Nebraska\Thurston Tennessee\Stewart

Colorado\Routt Kansas\Sedgwick Nebraska\Valley Tennessee\Sullivan

Colorado\Saguache Kansas\Seward Nebraska\Washington Tennessee\Sumner

Colorado\San Juan Kansas\Shawnee Nebraska\Wayne Tennessee\Tipton

Colorado\San Miguel Kansas\Sheridan Nebraska\Webster Tennessee\Trousdale

Colorado\Sedgwick Kansas\Sherman Nebraska\Wheeler Tennessee\Unicoi

Colorado\Summit Kansas\Smith Nebraska\York Tennessee\Union

Colorado\Teller Kansas\Stafford New Mexico\Bernalillo Tennessee\Van Buren

Colorado\Washington Kansas\Stanton New Mexico\Catron Tennessee\Warren

Colorado\Weld Kansas\Stevens New Mexico\Chaves Tennessee\Washington
81

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Colorado\Yuma Kansas\Sumner New Mexico\Cibola Tennessee\Wayne

Georgia\Appling Kansas\Thomas New Mexico\Colfax Tennessee\Weakley

Georgia\Atkinson Kansas\Trego New Mexico\Curry Tennessee\White

Georgia\Bacon Kansas\Wabaunsee New Mexico\De Baca Tennessee\Williamson

Georgia\Baker Kansas\Wallace New Mexico\Dona Ana Tennessee\Wilson

Georgia\Baldwin Kansas\Washington New Mexico\Eddy Texas\Anderson

Georgia\Banks Kansas\Wichita New Mexico\Grant Texas\Andrews

Georgia\Barrow Kansas\Wilson New Mexico\Guadalupe Texas\Angelina

Georgia\Bartow Kansas\Woodson New Mexico\Harding Texas\Aransas

Georgia\Ben Hill Kansas\Wyandotte New Mexico\Hidalgo Texas\Archer

Georgia\Berrien Kentucky\Adair New Mexico\Lea Texas\Armstrong

Georgia\Bibb Kentucky\Allen New Mexico\Lincoln Texas\Atascosa

Georgia\Bleckley Kentucky\Anderson New Mexico\Los Alamos Texas\Austin

Georgia\Brantley Kentucky\Ballard New Mexico\Luna Texas\Bailey

Georgia\Brooks Kentucky\Barren New Mexico\McKinley Texas\Bandera

Georgia\Bryan Kentucky\Bath New Mexico\Mora Texas\Bastrop

Georgia\Bulloch Kentucky\Bell New Mexico\Otero Texas\Baylor

Georgia\Burke Kentucky\Boone New Mexico\Quay Texas\Bee

Georgia\Butts Kentucky\Bourbon New Mexico\Rio Arriba Texas\Bell

Georgia\Calhoun Kentucky\Boyd New Mexico\Roosevelt Texas\Bexar

Georgia\Camden Kentucky\Boyle New Mexico\Sandoval Texas\Blanco

Georgia\Candler Kentucky\Bracken New Mexico\San Juan Texas\Borden

Georgia\Carroll Kentucky\Breathitt New Mexico\San Miguel Texas\Bosque

Georgia\Catoosa Kentucky\Breckinridge New Mexico\Santa Fe Texas\Bowie

Georgia\Charlton Kentucky\Bullitt New Mexico\Sierra Texas\Brazoria

Georgia\Chatham Kentucky\Butler New Mexico\Socorro Texas\Brazos

Georgia\Chattahoochee Kentucky\Caldwell New Mexico\Taos Texas\Brewster

Georgia\Chattooga Kentucky\Calloway New Mexico\Torrance Texas\Briscoe

Georgia\Cherokee Kentucky\Campbell New Mexico\Union Texas\Brooks

Georgia\Clarke Kentucky\Carlisle New Mexico\Valencia Texas\Brown

Georgia\Clay Kentucky\Carroll New York\Albany Texas\Burleson

Georgia\Clayton Kentucky\Carter New York\Allegany Texas\Burnet

Georgia\Clinch Kentucky\Casey New York\Bronx Texas\Caldwell

Georgia\Cobb Kentucky\Christian New York\Broome Texas\Calhoun

Georgia\Coffee Kentucky\Clark New York\Cattaraugus Texas\Callahan

Georgia\Colquitt Kentucky\Clay New York\Cayuga Texas\Cameron

Georgia\Columbia Kentucky\Clinton New York\Chautauqua Texas\Camp

Georgia\Cook Kentucky\Crittenden New York\Chemung Texas\Carson

Georgia\Coweta Kentucky\Cumberland New York\Chenango Texas\Cass

Georgia\Crawford Kentucky\Daviess New York\Clinton Texas\Castro

Georgia\Crisp Kentucky\Edmonson New York\Columbia Texas\Chambers

Georgia\Dade Kentucky\Elliott New York\Cortland Texas\Cherokee

Georgia\Dawson Kentucky\Estill New York\Delaware Texas\Childress

Georgia\Decatur Kentucky\Fayette New York\Dutchess Texas\Clay

Georgia\DeKalb Kentucky\Fleming New York\Erie Texas\Cochran

Georgia\Dodge Kentucky\Floyd New York\Essex Texas\Coke
82

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Georgia\Dooly Kentucky\Franklin New York\Franklin Texas\Coleman

Georgia\Dougherty Kentucky\Fulton New York\Fulton Texas\Collin

Georgia\Douglas Kentucky\Gallatin New York\Genesee Texas\Collingsworth

Georgia\Early Kentucky\Garrard New York\Greene Texas\Colorado

Georgia\Echols Kentucky\Grant New York\Hamilton Texas\Comal

Georgia\Effingham Kentucky\Graves New York\Herkimer Texas\Comanche

Georgia\Elbert Kentucky\Grayson New York\Jefferson Texas\Concho

Georgia\Emanuel Kentucky\Green New York\Kings Texas\Cooke

Georgia\Evans Kentucky\Greenup New York\Lewis Texas\Coryell

Georgia\Fannin Kentucky\Hancock New York\Livingston Texas\Cottle

Georgia\Fayette Kentucky\Hardin New York\Madison Texas\Crane

Georgia\Floyd Kentucky\Harlan New York\Monroe Texas\Crockett

Georgia\Forsyth Kentucky\Harrison New York\Montgomery Texas\Crosby

Georgia\Franklin Kentucky\Hart New York\Nassau Texas\Culberson

Georgia\Fulton Kentucky\Henderson New York\New York Texas\Dallam

Georgia\Gilmer Kentucky\Henry New York\Niagara Texas\Dallas

Georgia\Glascock Kentucky\Hickman New York\Oneida Texas\Dawson

Georgia\Glynn Kentucky\Hopkins New York\Onondaga Texas\Deaf Smith

Georgia\Gordon Kentucky\Jackson New York\Ontario Texas\Delta

Georgia\Grady Kentucky\Jefferson New York\Orange Texas\Denton

Georgia\Greene Kentucky\Jessamine New York\Orleans Texas\DeWitt

Georgia\Gwinnett Kentucky\Johnson New York\Oswego Texas\Dickens

Georgia\Habersham Kentucky\Kenton New York\Otsego Texas\Dimmit

Georgia\Hall Kentucky\Knott New York\Putnam Texas\Donley

Georgia\Hancock Kentucky\Knox New York\Queens Texas\Duval

Georgia\Haralson Kentucky\Larue New York\Rensselaer Texas\Eastland

Georgia\Harris Kentucky\Laurel New York\Richmond Texas\Ector

Georgia\Hart Kentucky\Lawrence New York\Rockland Texas\Edwards

Georgia\Heard Kentucky\Lee New York\St. Lawrence Texas\Ellis

Georgia\Henry Kentucky\Leslie New York\Saratoga Texas\El Paso

Georgia\Houston Kentucky\Letcher New York\Schenectady Texas\Erath

Georgia\Irwin Kentucky\Lewis New York\Schoharie Texas\Falls

Georgia\Jackson Kentucky\Lincoln New York\Schuyler Texas\Fannin

Georgia\Jasper Kentucky\Livingston New York\Seneca Texas\Fayette

Georgia\Jeff Davis Kentucky\Logan New York\Steuben Texas\Fisher

Georgia\Jefferson Kentucky\Lyon New York\Suffolk Texas\Floyd

Georgia\Jenkins Kentucky\McCracken New York\Sullivan Texas\Foard

Georgia\Johnson Kentucky\McCreary New York\Tioga Texas\Fort Bend

Georgia\Jones Kentucky\McLean New York\Tompkins Texas\Franklin

Georgia\Lamar Kentucky\Madison New York\Ulster Texas\Freestone

Georgia\Lanier Kentucky\Magoffin New York\Warren Texas\Frio

Georgia\Laurens Kentucky\Marion New York\Washington Texas\Gaines

Georgia\Lee Kentucky\Marshall New York\Wayne Texas\Galveston

Georgia\Liberty Kentucky\Martin New York\Westchester Texas\Garza

Georgia\Lincoln Kentucky\Mason New York\Wyoming Texas\Gillespie

Georgia\Long Kentucky\Meade New York\Yates Texas\Glasscock
83

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Georgia\Lowndes Kentucky\Menifee North Carolina\Alamance Texas\Goliad

Georgia\Lumpkin Kentucky\Mercer North Carolina\Alexander Texas\Gonzales

Georgia\McDuffie Kentucky\Metcalfe North Carolina\Alleghany Texas\Gray

Georgia\McIntosh Kentucky\Monroe North Carolina\Anson Texas\Grayson

Georgia\Macon Kentucky\Montgomery North Carolina\Ashe Texas\Gregg

Georgia\Madison Kentucky\Morgan North Carolina\Avery Texas\Grimes

Georgia\Marion Kentucky\Muhlenberg North Carolina\Beaufort Texas\Guadalupe

Georgia\Meriwether Kentucky\Nelson North Carolina\Bertie Texas\Hale

Georgia\Miller Kentucky\Nicholas North Carolina\Bladen Texas\Hall

Georgia\Mitchell Kentucky\Ohio North Carolina\Brunswick Texas\Hamilton

Georgia\Monroe Kentucky\Oldham North Carolina\Buncombe Texas\Hansford

Georgia\Montgomery Kentucky\Owen North Carolina\Burke Texas\Hardeman

Georgia\Morgan Kentucky\Owsley North Carolina\Cabarrus Texas\Hardin

Georgia\Murray Kentucky\Pendleton North Carolina\Caldwell Texas\Harris

Georgia\Muscogee Kentucky\Perry North Carolina\Camden Texas\Harrison

Georgia\Newton Kentucky\Pike North Carolina\Carteret Texas\Hartley

Georgia\Oconee Kentucky\Powell North Carolina\Caswell Texas\Haskell

Georgia\Oglethorpe Kentucky\Pulaski North Carolina\Catawba Texas\Hays

Georgia\Paulding Kentucky\Robertson North Carolina\Chatham Texas\Hemphill

Georgia\Peach Kentucky\Rockcastle North Carolina\Cherokee Texas\Henderson

Georgia\Pickens Kentucky\Rowan North Carolina\Chowan Texas\Hidalgo

Georgia\Pierce Kentucky\Russell North Carolina\Clay Texas\Hill

Georgia\Pike Kentucky\Scott North Carolina\Cleveland Texas\Hockley

Georgia\Polk Kentucky\Shelby North Carolina\Columbus Texas\Hood

Georgia\Pulaski Kentucky\Simpson North Carolina\Craven Texas\Hopkins

Georgia\Putnam Kentucky\Spencer North Carolina\Cumberland Texas\Houston

Georgia\Quitman Kentucky\Taylor North Carolina\Currituck Texas\Howard

Georgia\Rabun Kentucky\Todd North Carolina\Dare Texas\Hudspeth

Georgia\Randolph Kentucky\Trigg North Carolina\Davidson Texas\Hunt

Georgia\Richmond Kentucky\Trimble North Carolina\Davie Texas\Hutchinson

Georgia\Rockdale Kentucky\Union North Carolina\Duplin Texas\Irion

Georgia\Schley Kentucky\Warren North Carolina\Durham Texas\Jack

Georgia\Screven Kentucky\Washington North Carolina\Edgecombe Texas\Jackson

Georgia\Seminole Kentucky\Wayne North Carolina\Forsyth Texas\Jasper

Georgia\Spalding Kentucky\Webster North Carolina\Franklin Texas\Jeff Davis

Georgia\Stephens Kentucky\Whitley North Carolina\Gaston Texas\Jefferson

Georgia\Stewart Kentucky\Wolfe North Carolina\Gates Texas\Jim Hogg

Georgia\Sumter Kentucky\Woodford North Carolina\Graham Texas\Jim Wells

Georgia\Talbot Michigan\Alcona North Carolina\Granville Texas\Johnson

Georgia\Taliaferro Michigan\Alger North Carolina\Greene Texas\Jones

Georgia\Tattnall Michigan\Allegan North Carolina\Guilford Texas\Karnes

Georgia\Taylor Michigan\Alpena North Carolina\Halifax Texas\Kaufman

Georgia\Telfair Michigan\Antrim North Carolina\Harnett Texas\Kendall

Georgia\Terrell Michigan\Arenac North Carolina\Haywood Texas\Kenedy

Georgia\Thomas Michigan\Baraga North Carolina\Henderson Texas\Kent

Georgia\Tift Michigan\Barry North Carolina\Hertford Texas\Kerr
84

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Georgia\Toombs Michigan\Bay North Carolina\Hoke Texas\Kimble

Georgia\Towns Michigan\Benzie North Carolina\Hyde Texas\King

Georgia\Treutlen Michigan\Berrien North Carolina\Iredell Texas\Kinney

Georgia\Troup Michigan\Branch North Carolina\Jackson Texas\Kleberg

Georgia\Turner Michigan\Calhoun North Carolina\Johnston Texas\Knox

Georgia\Twiggs Michigan\Cass North Carolina\Jones Texas\Lamar

Georgia\Union Michigan\Charlevoix North Carolina\Lee Texas\Lamb

Georgia\Upson Michigan\Cheboygan North Carolina\Lenoir Texas\Lampasas

Georgia\Walker Michigan\Chippewa North Carolina\Lincoln Texas\La Salle

Georgia\Walton Michigan\Clare North Carolina\McDowell Texas\Lavaca

Georgia\Ware Michigan\Clinton North Carolina\Macon Texas\Lee

Georgia\Warren Michigan\Crawford North Carolina\Madison Texas\Leon

Georgia\Washington Michigan\Delta North Carolina\Martin Texas\Liberty

Georgia\Wayne Michigan\Dickinson North Carolina\Mecklenburg Texas\Limestone

Georgia\Webster Michigan\Eaton North Carolina\Mitchell Texas\Lipscomb

Georgia\Wheeler Michigan\Emmet North Carolina\Montgomery Texas\Live Oak

Georgia\White Michigan\Genesee North Carolina\Moore Texas\Llano

Georgia\Whitfield Michigan\Gladwin North Carolina\Nash Texas\Loving

Georgia\Wilcox Michigan\Gogebic North Carolina\New Hanover Texas\Lubbock

Georgia\Wilkes Michigan\Grand Traverse North Carolina\Northampton Texas\Lynn

Georgia\Wilkinson Michigan\Gratiot North Carolina\Onslow Texas\McCulloch

Georgia\Worth Michigan\Hillsdale North Carolina\Orange Texas\McLennan

Idaho\Ada Michigan\Houghton North Carolina\Pamlico Texas\McMullen

Idaho\Adams Michigan\Huron North Carolina\Pasquotank Texas\Madison

Idaho\Bannock Michigan\Ingham North Carolina\Pender Texas\Marion

Idaho\Bear Lake Michigan\Ionia North Carolina\Perquimans Texas\Martin

Idaho\Benewah Michigan\Iosco North Carolina\Person Texas\Mason

Idaho\Bingham Michigan\Iron North Carolina\Pitt Texas\Matagorda

Idaho\Blaine Michigan\Isabella North Carolina\Polk Texas\Maverick

Idaho\Boise Michigan\Jackson North Carolina\Randolph Texas\Medina

Idaho\Bonner Michigan\Kalamazoo North Carolina\Richmond Texas\Menard

Idaho\Bonneville Michigan\Kalkaska North Carolina\Robeson Texas\Midland

Idaho\Boundary Michigan\Kent North Carolina\Rockingham Texas\Milam

Idaho\Butte Michigan\Keweenaw North Carolina\Rowan Texas\Mills

Idaho\Camas Michigan\Lake North Carolina\Rutherford Texas\Mitchell

Idaho\Canyon Michigan\Lapeer North Carolina\Sampson Texas\Montague

Idaho\Caribou Michigan\Leelanau North Carolina\Scotland Texas\Montgomery

Idaho\Cassia Michigan\Lenawee North Carolina\Stanly Texas\Moore

Idaho\Clark Michigan\Livingston North Carolina\Stokes Texas\Morris

Idaho\Clearwater Michigan\Luce North Carolina\Surry Texas\Motley

Idaho\Custer Michigan\Mackinac North Carolina\Swain Texas\Nacogdoches

Idaho\Elmore Michigan\Macomb North Carolina\Transylvania Texas\Navarro

Idaho\Franklin Michigan\Manistee North Carolina\Tyrrell Texas\Newton

Idaho\Fremont Michigan\Marquette North Carolina\Union Texas\Nolan

Idaho\Gem Michigan\Mason North Carolina\Vance Texas\Nueces

Idaho\Gooding Michigan\Mecosta North Carolina\Wake Texas\Ochiltree
85

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Idaho\Idaho Michigan\Menominee North Carolina\Warren Texas\Oldham

Idaho\Jefferson Michigan\Midland North Carolina\Washington Texas\Orange

Idaho\Jerome Michigan\Missaukee North Carolina\Watauga Texas\Palo Pinto

Idaho\Kootenai Michigan\Monroe North Carolina\Wayne Texas\Panola

Idaho\Latah Michigan\Montcalm North Carolina\Wilkes Texas\Parker

Idaho\Lemhi Michigan\Montmorency North Carolina\Wilson Texas\Parmer

Idaho\Lewis Michigan\Muskegon North Carolina\Yadkin Texas\Pecos

Idaho\Lincoln Michigan\Newaygo North Carolina\Yancey Texas\Polk

Idaho\Madison Michigan\Oakland North Dakota\Adams Texas\Potter

Idaho\Minidoka Michigan\Oceana North Dakota\Barnes Texas\Presidio

Idaho\Nez Perce Michigan\Ogemaw North Dakota\Benson Texas\Rains

Idaho\Oneida Michigan\Ontonagon North Dakota\Billings Texas\Randall

Idaho\Owyhee Michigan\Osceola North Dakota\Bottineau Texas\Reagan

Idaho\Payette Michigan\Oscoda North Dakota\Bowman Texas\Real

Idaho\Power Michigan\Otsego North Dakota\Burke Texas\Red River

Idaho\Shoshone Michigan\Ottawa North Dakota\Burleigh Texas\Reeves

Idaho\Teton Michigan\Presque Isle North Dakota\Cass Texas\Refugio

Idaho\Twin Falls Michigan\Roscommon North Dakota\Cavalier Texas\Roberts

Idaho\Valley Michigan\Saginaw North Dakota\Dickey Texas\Robertson

Idaho\Washington Michigan\St. Clair North Dakota\Divide Texas\Rockwall

Illinois\Adams Michigan\St. Joseph North Dakota\Dunn Texas\Runnels

Illinois\Alexander Michigan\Sanilac North Dakota\Eddy Texas\Rusk

Illinois\Bond Michigan\Schoolcraft North Dakota\Emmons Texas\Sabine

Illinois\Boone Michigan\Shiawassee North Dakota\Foster Texas\San Augustine

Illinois\Brown Michigan\Tuscola North Dakota\Golden Valley Texas\San Jacinto

Illinois\Bureau Michigan\Van Buren North Dakota\Grand Forks Texas\San Patricio

Illinois\Calhoun Michigan\Washtenaw North Dakota\Grant Texas\San Saba

Illinois\Carroll Michigan\Wayne North Dakota\Griggs Texas\Schleicher

Illinois\Cass Michigan\Wexford North Dakota\Hettinger Texas\Scurry

Illinois\Champaign Minnesota\Aitkin North Dakota\Kidder Texas\Shackelford

Illinois\Christian Minnesota\Anoka North Dakota\LaMoure Texas\Shelby

Illinois\Clark Minnesota\Becker North Dakota\Logan Texas\Sherman

Illinois\Clay Minnesota\Beltrami North Dakota\McHenry Texas\Smith

Illinois\Clinton Minnesota\Benton North Dakota\McIntosh Texas\Somervell

Illinois\Coles Minnesota\Big Stone North Dakota\McKenzie Texas\Starr

Illinois\Cook Minnesota\Blue Earth North Dakota\McLean Texas\Stephens

Illinois\Crawford Minnesota\Brown North Dakota\Mercer Texas\Sterling

Illinois\Cumberland Minnesota\Carlton North Dakota\Morton Texas\Stonewall

Illinois\De Kalb Minnesota\Carver North Dakota\Mountrail Texas\Sutton

Illinois\De Witt Minnesota\Cass North Dakota\Nelson Texas\Swisher

Illinois\Douglas Minnesota\Chippewa North Dakota\Oliver Texas\Tarrant

Illinois\Du Page Minnesota\Chisago North Dakota\Pembina Texas\Taylor

Illinois\Edgar Minnesota\Clay North Dakota\Pierce Texas\Terrell

Illinois\Edwards Minnesota\Clearwater North Dakota\Ramsey Texas\Terry

Illinois\Effingham Minnesota\Cook North Dakota\Ransom Texas\Throckmorton

Illinois\Fayette Minnesota\Cottonwood North Dakota\Renville Texas\Titus
86

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Illinois\Ford Minnesota\Crow Wing North Dakota\Richland Texas\Tom Green

Illinois\Franklin Minnesota\Dakota North Dakota\Rolette Texas\Travis

Illinois\Fulton Minnesota\Dodge North Dakota\Sargent Texas\Trinity

Illinois\Gallatin Minnesota\Douglas North Dakota\Sheridan Texas\Tyler

Illinois\Greene Minnesota\Faribault North Dakota\Sioux Texas\Upshur

Illinois\Grundy Minnesota\Fillmore North Dakota\Slope Texas\Upton

Illinois\Hamilton Minnesota\Freeborn North Dakota\Stark Texas\Uvalde

Illinois\Hancock Minnesota\Goodhue North Dakota\Steele Texas\Val Verde

Illinois\Hardin Minnesota\Grant North Dakota\Stutsman Texas\Van Zandt

Illinois\Henderson Minnesota\Hennepin North Dakota\Towner Texas\Victoria

Illinois\Henry Minnesota\Houston North Dakota\Traill Texas\Walker

Illinois\Iroquois Minnesota\Hubbard North Dakota\Walsh Texas\Waller

Illinois\Jackson Minnesota\Isanti North Dakota\Ward Texas\Ward

Illinois\Jasper Minnesota\Itasca North Dakota\Wells Texas\Washington

Illinois\Jefferson Minnesota\Jackson North Dakota\Williams Texas\Webb

Illinois\Jersey Minnesota\Kanabec Ohio\Adams Texas\Wharton

Illinois\Jo Daviess Minnesota\Kandiyohi Ohio\Allen Texas\Wheeler

Illinois\Johnson Minnesota\Kittson Ohio\Ashland Texas\Wichita

Illinois\Kane Minnesota\Koochiching Ohio\Ashtabula Texas\Wilbarger

Illinois\Kankakee Minnesota\Lac qui Parle Ohio\Athens Texas\Willacy

Illinois\Kendall Minnesota\Lake Ohio\Auglaize Texas\Williamson

Illinois\Knox

Minnesota\Lake of the 

Woods Ohio\Belmont Texas\Wilson

Illinois\Lake Minnesota\Le Sueur Ohio\Brown Texas\Winkler

Illinois\La Salle Minnesota\Lincoln Ohio\Butler Texas\Wise

Illinois\Lawrence Minnesota\Lyon Ohio\Carroll Texas\Wood

Illinois\Lee Minnesota\McLeod Ohio\Champaign Texas\Yoakum

Illinois\Livingston Minnesota\Mahnomen Ohio\Clark Texas\Young

Illinois\Logan Minnesota\Marshall Ohio\Clermont Texas\Zapata

Illinois\McDonough Minnesota\Martin Ohio\Clinton Texas\Zavala

Illinois\McHenry Minnesota\Meeker Ohio\Columbiana Virginia\Accomack

Illinois\McLean Minnesota\Mille Lacs Ohio\Coshocton Virginia\Albemarle

Illinois\Macon Minnesota\Morrison Ohio\Crawford Virginia\Alleghany

Illinois\Macoupin Minnesota\Mower Ohio\Cuyahoga Virginia\Amelia

Illinois\Madison Minnesota\Murray Ohio\Darke Virginia\Amherst

Illinois\Marion Minnesota\Nicollet Ohio\Defiance Virginia\Appomattox

Illinois\Marshall Minnesota\Nobles Ohio\Delaware Virginia\Arlington

Illinois\Mason Minnesota\Norman Ohio\Erie Virginia\Augusta

Illinois\Massac Minnesota\Olmsted Ohio\Fairfield Virginia\Bath

Illinois\Menard Minnesota\Otter Tail Ohio\Fayette Virginia\Bedford

Illinois\Mercer Minnesota\Pennington Ohio\Franklin Virginia\Bland

Illinois\Monroe Minnesota\Pine Ohio\Fulton Virginia\Botetourt

Illinois\Montgomery Minnesota\Pipestone Ohio\Gallia Virginia\Brunswick

Illinois\Morgan Minnesota\Polk Ohio\Geauga Virginia\Buchanan

Illinois\Moultrie Minnesota\Pope Ohio\Greene Virginia\Buckingham

Illinois\Ogle Minnesota\Ramsey Ohio\Guernsey Virginia\Campbell
87

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Illinois\Peoria Minnesota\Red Lake Ohio\Hamilton Virginia\Caroline

Illinois\Perry Minnesota\Redwood Ohio\Hancock Virginia\Carroll

Illinois\Piatt Minnesota\Renville Ohio\Hardin Virginia\Charles City

Illinois\Pike Minnesota\Rice Ohio\Harrison Virginia\Charlotte

Illinois\Pope Minnesota\Rock Ohio\Henry Virginia\Chesterfield

Illinois\Pulaski Minnesota\Roseau Ohio\Highland Virginia\Clarke

Illinois\Putnam Minnesota\St. Louis Ohio\Hocking Virginia\Craig

Illinois\Randolph Minnesota\Scott Ohio\Holmes Virginia\Culpeper

Illinois\Richland Minnesota\Sherburne Ohio\Huron Virginia\Cumberland

Illinois\Rock Island Minnesota\Sibley Ohio\Jackson Virginia\Dickenson

Illinois\St. Clair Minnesota\Stearns Ohio\Jefferson Virginia\Dinwiddie

Illinois\Saline Minnesota\Steele Ohio\Knox Virginia\Essex

Illinois\Sangamon Minnesota\Stevens Ohio\Lake Virginia\Fairfax

Illinois\Schuyler Minnesota\Swift Ohio\Lawrence Virginia\Fauquier

Illinois\Scott Minnesota\Todd Ohio\Licking Virginia\Floyd

Illinois\Shelby Minnesota\Traverse Ohio\Logan Virginia\Fluvanna

Illinois\Stark Minnesota\Wabasha Ohio\Lorain Virginia\Franklin

Illinois\Stephenson Minnesota\Wadena Ohio\Lucas Virginia\Frederick

Illinois\Tazewell Minnesota\Waseca Ohio\Madison Virginia\Giles

Illinois\Union Minnesota\Washington Ohio\Mahoning Virginia\Gloucester

Illinois\Vermilion Minnesota\Watonwan Ohio\Marion Virginia\Goochland

Illinois\Wabash Minnesota\Wilkin Ohio\Medina Virginia\Grayson

Illinois\Warren Minnesota\Winona Ohio\Meigs Virginia\Greene

Illinois\Washington Minnesota\Wright Ohio\Mercer Virginia\Greensville

Illinois\Wayne Minnesota\Yellow Medicine Ohio\Miami Virginia\Halifax

Illinois\White Mississippi\Adams Ohio\Monroe Virginia\Hanover

Illinois\Whiteside Mississippi\Alcorn Ohio\Montgomery Virginia\Henrico

Illinois\Will Mississippi\Amite Ohio\Morgan Virginia\Henry

Illinois\Williamson Mississippi\Attala Ohio\Morrow Virginia\Highland

Illinois\Winnebago Mississippi\Benton Ohio\Muskingum Virginia\Isle of Wight

Illinois\Woodford Mississippi\Bolivar Ohio\Noble Virginia\James City

Indiana\Adams Mississippi\Calhoun Ohio\Ottawa Virginia\King and Queen

Indiana\Allen Mississippi\Carroll Ohio\Paulding Virginia\King George

Indiana\Bartholomew Mississippi\Chickasaw Ohio\Perry Virginia\King William

Indiana\Benton Mississippi\Choctaw Ohio\Pickaway Virginia\Lancaster

Indiana\Blackford Mississippi\Claiborne Ohio\Pike Virginia\Lee

Indiana\Boone Mississippi\Clarke Ohio\Portage Virginia\Loudoun

Indiana\Brown Mississippi\Clay Ohio\Preble Virginia\Louisa

Indiana\Carroll Mississippi\Coahoma Ohio\Putnam Virginia\Lunenburg

Indiana\Cass Mississippi\Copiah Ohio\Richland Virginia\Madison

Indiana\Clark Mississippi\Covington Ohio\Ross Virginia\Mathews

Indiana\Clay Mississippi\DeSoto Ohio\Sandusky Virginia\Mecklenburg

Indiana\Clinton Mississippi\Forrest Ohio\Scioto Virginia\Middlesex

Indiana\Crawford Mississippi\Franklin Ohio\Seneca Virginia\Montgomery

Indiana\Daviess Mississippi\George Ohio\Shelby Virginia\Nelson

Indiana\Dearborn Mississippi\Greene Ohio\Stark Virginia\New Kent
88

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Indiana\Decatur Mississippi\Grenada Ohio\Summit Virginia\Northampton

Indiana\DeKalb Mississippi\Hancock Ohio\Trumbull Virginia\Northumberland

Indiana\Delaware Mississippi\Harrison Ohio\Tuscarawas Virginia\Nottoway

Indiana\Dubois Mississippi\Hinds Ohio\Union Virginia\Orange

Indiana\Elkhart Mississippi\Holmes Ohio\Van Wert Virginia\Page

Indiana\Fayette Mississippi\Humphreys Ohio\Vinton Virginia\Patrick

Indiana\Floyd Mississippi\Issaquena Ohio\Warren Virginia\Pittsylvania

Indiana\Fountain Mississippi\Itawamba Ohio\Washington Virginia\Powhatan

Indiana\Franklin Mississippi\Jackson Ohio\Wayne Virginia\Prince Edward

Indiana\Fulton Mississippi\Jasper Ohio\Williams Virginia\Prince George

Indiana\Gibson Mississippi\Jefferson Ohio\Wood Virginia\Prince William

Indiana\Grant Mississippi\Jefferson Davis Ohio\Wyandot Virginia\Pulaski

Indiana\Greene Mississippi\Jones Oregon\Baker Virginia\Rappahannock

Indiana\Hamilton Mississippi\Kemper Oregon\Benton Virginia\Richmond

Indiana\Hancock Mississippi\Lafayette Oregon\Clackamas Virginia\Roanoke

Indiana\Harrison Mississippi\Lamar Oregon\Clatsop Virginia\Rockbridge

Indiana\Hendricks Mississippi\Lauderdale Oregon\Columbia Virginia\Rockingham

Indiana\Henry Mississippi\Lawrence Oregon\Coos Virginia\Russell

Indiana\Howard Mississippi\Leake Oregon\Crook Virginia\Scott

Indiana\Huntington Mississippi\Lee Oregon\Curry Virginia\Shenandoah

Indiana\Jackson Mississippi\Leflore Oregon\Deschutes Virginia\Smyth

Indiana\Jasper Mississippi\Lincoln Oregon\Douglas Virginia\Southampton

Indiana\Jay Mississippi\Lowndes Oregon\Gilliam Virginia\Spotsylvania

Indiana\Jefferson Mississippi\Madison Oregon\Grant Virginia\Stafford

Indiana\Jennings Mississippi\Marion Oregon\Harney Virginia\Surry

Indiana\Johnson Mississippi\Marshall Oregon\Hood River Virginia\Sussex

Indiana\Knox Mississippi\Monroe Oregon\Jackson Virginia\Tazewell

Indiana\Kosciusko Mississippi\Montgomery Oregon\Jefferson Virginia\Warren

Indiana\LaGrange Mississippi\Neshoba Oregon\Josephine Virginia\Washington

Indiana\Lake Mississippi\Newton Oregon\Klamath Virginia\Westmoreland

Indiana\LaPorte Mississippi\Noxubee Oregon\Lake Virginia\Wise

Indiana\Lawrence Mississippi\Oktibbeha Oregon\Lane Virginia\Wythe

Indiana\Madison Mississippi\Panola Oregon\Lincoln Virginia\York

Indiana\Marion Mississippi\Pearl River Oregon\Linn Virginia\Chesapeake City

Indiana\Marshall Mississippi\Perry Oregon\Malheur Virginia\Suffolk

Indiana\Martin Mississippi\Pike Oregon\Marion Virginia\Virginia Beach City

Indiana\Miami Mississippi\Pontotoc Oregon\Morrow Wisconsin\Adams

Indiana\Monroe Mississippi\Prentiss Oregon\Multnomah Wisconsin\Ashland

Indiana\Montgomery Mississippi\Quitman Oregon\Polk Wisconsin\Barron

Indiana\Morgan Mississippi\Rankin Oregon\Sherman Wisconsin\Bayfield

Indiana\Newton Mississippi\Scott Oregon\Tillamook Wisconsin\Brown

Indiana\Noble Mississippi\Sharkey Oregon\Umatilla Wisconsin\Buffalo

Indiana\Ohio Mississippi\Simpson Oregon\Union Wisconsin\Burnett

Indiana\Orange Mississippi\Smith Oregon\Wallowa Wisconsin\Calumet

Indiana\Owen Mississippi\Stone Oregon\Wasco Wisconsin\Chippewa

Indiana\Parke Mississippi\Sunflower Oregon\Washington Wisconsin\Clark
89

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Indiana\Perry Mississippi\Tallahatchie Oregon\Wheeler Wisconsin\Columbia

Indiana\Pike Mississippi\Tate Oregon\Yamhill Wisconsin\Crawford

Indiana\Porter Mississippi\Tippah Pennsylvania\Adams Wisconsin\Dane

Indiana\Posey Mississippi\Tishomingo Pennsylvania\Allegheny Wisconsin\Dodge

Indiana\Pulaski Mississippi\Tunica Pennsylvania\Armstrong Wisconsin\Door

Indiana\Putnam Mississippi\Union Pennsylvania\Beaver Wisconsin\Douglas

Indiana\Randolph Mississippi\Walthall Pennsylvania\Bedford Wisconsin\Dunn

Indiana\Ripley Mississippi\Warren Pennsylvania\Berks Wisconsin\Eau Claire

Indiana\Rush Mississippi\Washington Pennsylvania\Blair Wisconsin\Florence

Indiana\St. Joseph Mississippi\Wayne Pennsylvania\Bradford Wisconsin\Fond du Lac

Indiana\Scott Mississippi\Webster Pennsylvania\Bucks Wisconsin\Forest

Indiana\Shelby Mississippi\Wilkinson Pennsylvania\Butler Wisconsin\Grant

Indiana\Spencer Mississippi\Winston Pennsylvania\Cambria Wisconsin\Green

Indiana\Starke Mississippi\Yalobusha Pennsylvania\Cameron Wisconsin\Green Lake

Indiana\Steuben Mississippi\Yazoo Pennsylvania\Carbon Wisconsin\Iowa

Indiana\Sullivan Missouri\Adair Pennsylvania\Centre Wisconsin\Iron

Indiana\Switzerland Missouri\Andrew Pennsylvania\Chester Wisconsin\Jackson

Indiana\Tippecanoe Missouri\Atchison Pennsylvania\Clarion Wisconsin\Jefferson

Indiana\Tipton Missouri\Audrain Pennsylvania\Clearfield Wisconsin\Juneau

Indiana\Union Missouri\Barry Pennsylvania\Clinton Wisconsin\Kenosha

Indiana\Vanderburgh Missouri\Barton Pennsylvania\Columbia Wisconsin\Kewaunee

Indiana\Vermillion Missouri\Bates Pennsylvania\Crawford Wisconsin\La Crosse

Indiana\Vigo Missouri\Benton Pennsylvania\Cumberland Wisconsin\Lafayette

Indiana\Wabash Missouri\Bollinger Pennsylvania\Dauphin Wisconsin\Langlade

Indiana\Warren Missouri\Boone Pennsylvania\Delaware Wisconsin\Lincoln

Indiana\Warrick Missouri\Buchanan Pennsylvania\Elk Wisconsin\Manitowoc

Indiana\Washington Missouri\Butler Pennsylvania\Erie Wisconsin\Marathon

Indiana\Wayne Missouri\Caldwell Pennsylvania\Fayette Wisconsin\Marinette

Indiana\Wells Missouri\Callaway Pennsylvania\Forest Wisconsin\Marquette

Indiana\White Missouri\Camden Pennsylvania\Franklin Wisconsin\Menominee

Indiana\Whitley Missouri\Cape Girardeau Pennsylvania\Fulton Wisconsin\Milwaukee

Iowa\Adair Missouri\Carroll Pennsylvania\Greene Wisconsin\Monroe

Iowa\Adams Missouri\Carter Pennsylvania\Huntingdon Wisconsin\Oconto

Iowa\Allamakee Missouri\Cass Pennsylvania\Indiana Wisconsin\Oneida

Iowa\Appanoose Missouri\Cedar Pennsylvania\Jefferson Wisconsin\Outagamie

Iowa\Audubon Missouri\Chariton Pennsylvania\Juniata Wisconsin\Ozaukee

Iowa\Benton Missouri\Christian Pennsylvania\Lackawanna Wisconsin\Pepin

Iowa\Black Hawk Missouri\Clark Pennsylvania\Lancaster Wisconsin\Pierce

Iowa\Boone Missouri\Clay Pennsylvania\Lawrence Wisconsin\Polk

Iowa\Bremer Missouri\Clinton Pennsylvania\Lebanon Wisconsin\Portage

Iowa\Buchanan Missouri\Cole Pennsylvania\Lehigh Wisconsin\Price

Iowa\Buena Vista Missouri\Cooper Pennsylvania\Luzerne Wisconsin\Racine

Iowa\Butler Missouri\Crawford Pennsylvania\Lycoming Wisconsin\Richland

Iowa\Calhoun Missouri\Dade Pennsylvania\McKean Wisconsin\Rock

Iowa\Carroll Missouri\Dallas Pennsylvania\Mercer Wisconsin\Rusk

Iowa\Cass Missouri\Daviess Pennsylvania\Mifflin Wisconsin\St. Croix
90

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Iowa\Cedar Missouri\DeKalb Pennsylvania\Monroe Wisconsin\Sauk

Iowa\Cerro Gordo Missouri\Dent Pennsylvania\Montgomery Wisconsin\Sawyer

Iowa\Cherokee Missouri\Douglas Pennsylvania\Montour Wisconsin\Shawano

Iowa\Chickasaw Missouri\Dunklin Pennsylvania\Northampton Wisconsin\Sheboygan

Iowa\Clarke Missouri\Franklin Pennsylvania\Northumberland Wisconsin\Taylor

Iowa\Clay Missouri\Gasconade Pennsylvania\Perry Wisconsin\Trempealeau

Iowa\Clayton Missouri\Gentry Pennsylvania\Philadelphia Wisconsin\Vernon

Iowa\Clinton Missouri\Greene Pennsylvania\Pike Wisconsin\Vilas

Iowa\Crawford Missouri\Grundy Pennsylvania\Potter Wisconsin\Walworth

Iowa\Dallas Missouri\Harrison Pennsylvania\Schuylkill Wisconsin\Washburn

Iowa\Davis Missouri\Henry Pennsylvania\Snyder Wisconsin\Washington

Iowa\Decatur Missouri\Hickory Pennsylvania\Somerset Wisconsin\Waukesha

Iowa\Delaware Missouri\Holt Pennsylvania\Sullivan Wisconsin\Waupaca

Iowa\Des Moines Missouri\Howard Pennsylvania\Susquehanna Wisconsin\Waushara

Iowa\Dickinson Missouri\Howell Pennsylvania\Tioga Wisconsin\Winnebago

Iowa\Dubuque Missouri\Iron Pennsylvania\Union Wisconsin\Wood

Iowa\Emmet Missouri\Jackson Pennsylvania\Venango Wyoming\Albany

Iowa\Fayette Missouri\Jasper Pennsylvania\Warren Wyoming\Big Horn

Iowa\Floyd Missouri\Jefferson Pennsylvania\Washington Wyoming\Campbell

Iowa\Franklin Missouri\Johnson Pennsylvania\Wayne Wyoming\Carbon

Iowa\Fremont Missouri\Knox Pennsylvania\Westmoreland Wyoming\Converse

Iowa\Greene Missouri\Laclede Pennsylvania\Wyoming Wyoming\Crook

Iowa\Grundy Missouri\Lafayette Pennsylvania\York Wyoming\Fremont

Iowa\Guthrie Missouri\Lawrence South Dakota\Aurora Wyoming\Goshen

Iowa\Hamilton Missouri\Lewis South Dakota\Beadle Wyoming\Hot Springs

Iowa\Hancock Missouri\Lincoln South Dakota\Bennett Wyoming\Johnson

Iowa\Hardin Missouri\Linn South Dakota\Bon Homme Wyoming\Laramie

Iowa\Harrison Missouri\Livingston South Dakota\Brookings Wyoming\Lincoln

Iowa\Henry Missouri\McDonald South Dakota\Brown Wyoming\Natrona

Iowa\Howard Missouri\Macon South Dakota\Brule Wyoming\Niobrara

Iowa\Humboldt Missouri\Madison South Dakota\Buffalo Wyoming\Park

Iowa\Ida Missouri\Maries South Dakota\Butte Wyoming\Platte

Iowa\Iowa Missouri\Marion South Dakota\Campbell Wyoming\Sheridan

Iowa\Jackson Missouri\Mercer South Dakota\Charles Mix Wyoming\Sublette

Iowa\Jasper Missouri\Miller South Dakota\Clark Wyoming\Sweetwater

Iowa\Jefferson Missouri\Mississippi South Dakota\Clay Wyoming\Teton

Iowa\Johnson Missouri\Moniteau South Dakota\Codington Wyoming\Uinta

Iowa\Jones Missouri\Monroe South Dakota\Corson Wyoming\Washakie

Iowa\Keokuk Missouri\Montgomery South Dakota\Custer Wyoming\Weston

Iowa\Kossuth Missouri\Morgan South Dakota\Davison

Iowa\Lee Missouri\New Madrid South Dakota\Day

Iowa\Linn Missouri\Newton South Dakota\Deuel

Iowa\Louisa Missouri\Nodaway South Dakota\Dewey

Iowa\Lucas Missouri\Oregon South Dakota\Douglas

Iowa\Lyon Missouri\Osage South Dakota\Edmunds

Iowa\Madison Missouri\Ozark South Dakota\Fall River
91

State/County State/County State/County State/County

Iowa\Mahaska Missouri\Pemiscot South Dakota\Faulk
92

Appendix C. Economic Impact Report submitted by 

Sygenta
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133

Appendix D. Pollen-mediated gene flow report 

submitted by Syngenta

Minimization of Pollen-Mediated Gene Flow from Corn Amylase Corn through 

Planting Border Rows 

Over the past several years a number of studies have been published on the distribution of 

corn pollen and the potential transgenes to fertilize other corn. The USDA APHIS BRS 

reviewed this topic in their Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms (USDA 2007). Syngenta’s analysis of 

pollen-mediated gene flow (PMGF) from corn amylase corn (CA) to non-corn amylase corn 

(NCA) is built upon several published studies, i.e., Jarosz et al. (2003), Jemison and Veyda 

(2001), Ma (2005), Ma et al. (2004) and Westgate et al. (2003). However, emphasis was 

placed upon the work of Dr. Ma, Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Center, Agriculture 

and Agri-Food Canada (http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/feb0502.htm ). Dr. Ma’s findings 

were consistent with or more conservative than the other studies, i.e., the potential for pollen 

movement over a longer distance and a greater probability for PMGF at the same distance. 

Furthermore, Dr. Ma’s exponential decline model indicates essentially a zero probability of 

detecting PMGF beyond six hundred and sixty-six feet (200 meters) (Table 1). 

Using Dr. Ma’s model, Syngenta calculated the probability of PMGF from a 75-acre field of 

100% CA corn to NCA corn planted on all four sides. The analysis was performed with and 

without 12 NCA corn border rows surrounding the CA field. The NCA corn was planted 

immediately adjacent to the CA corn (Scenario 1, Figure 1) or the 12

th

border row (Scenario 

2, Figure 2). As previously communicated to APHIS BRS on September 6, 2007, Syngenta, 

post-commercialization, will instruct growers to plant 12 border rows around each CA field. 

The following assumptions were made in calculating PMGF in these two scenarios: 

1. CA corn pollen will flow to the NCA corn bordering all four sides and corners of 

the CA field. 

2. The probability of CA corn PMGF beyond the edge of the CA field or 12

th

border 

to 200 meters in the NCA corn fields was calculated using Dr. Ma’s exponential 

decline model (Ma 2005). 

3. 100% of the corn in the CA field contains the corn amylase trait. 

Based on these assumptions, and the Ma exponential decline model, under Scenario 1, 

Syngenta calculates that 0.19% of the NCA corn planted adjacent to the CA corn to 200 

meters will contain the CA gene (Table 1, Row 1). Under Scenario 2, 0.005% of the NCA 

corn planted adjacent to the 12

th

border row to 200 meters will contain the CA gene (Table 1, 

Row 12). Consequently, the 12 border rows surrounding the CA corn field capture 97.2% of 

all CA pollen (0.190% - 0.005%) / (0.190%) = 97.2%. 
134

By blending the border rows with the harvested CA corn, >99.9% of all CA is captured. For 

example, assume 100 acres of CA is planted and 170 acres of NCA is planted adjacent to the 

CA corn to achieve the 200 meters distance cited by Ma (Figure 1). 

With yields of 180 bushels per acre (bpa), the total production of CA would be: 

100 CA acres x 180 bpa = 18,000 CA bushels 

170 NCA acres x 180 bpa = 30,600 NCA bushels x 0.19% adventitious CA = 58 bushels 

Total CA bushels from 100 acre CA field and 170 acre NCA field = 18,058 bushels 

With 12 border rows the CA production beyond the 12 border rows is 1.5 bushels (170 acres 

x 180 bpa x 0.005% adventitious CA). Therefore, the total CA capture is 18,058 bushels less 

the 1.5 bushels divided by 18,058 = 99.99%. 

Literature cited 

Jarosz, N., B. Loubet, ., B. Durand, A. McCartney, X. Foueillassar and L. Huber. 2003. 

Field measurements of airborne concentration and deposition rate of maize pollen. 

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 119, 37–51. 

Jemison, J. and M.E. Vayda. 2001. Cross pollination from genetically engineered corn: 

wind transport and seed source. AgBioForum 4, 87-92. 

Ma B.L. 2005. Frequency of pollen drift in genetically engineered corn. 

http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/feb0502.htm.

Ma B.L., K.D. Subedi and L.M. Reid. 2004. Extent of cross-fertilization in maize by pollens 

from neighboring transgenic hybrid. Crop Sci. 44, 1273-1282. 

Westgate ME, J. Lizaso and W. Batchelor. 2003. Quantitative relationship between pollenshed density and grain yield in maize. Crop Sci. 43, 934-942. 
135

Figure 1. Planting configuration of corn amylase (CA) and non-corn amylase (NCA) corn 

without 12 separating border rows (Scenario 1). 

 

200 meters
136

Figure 2. Planting configuration of corn amylase (CA) and non-corn amylase (NCA) corn 

with 12 separating border rows (Scenario 2). 

200 meters

12 NCA

border rows
137

Table 1. Percent pollen-mediated gene flow downwind and upwind of source corn pollen as 

extrapolated from Ma (2005)

1

. 

Row #2 Distance 

(meters)

Downwind Upwind Downwind 

Mean

Upwind 

Mean

Overall 

Mean Beyond Mean3

0 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 

1 0.75 20.35% 9.47% 20.35% 9.47% 14.91% 0.19% 

2 1.50 14.96% 5.83% 17.66% 7.65% 12.65% 0.13% 

3 2.25 11.00% 3.59% 15.44% 6.30% 10.87% 0.10% 

4 3.00 8.09% 2.21% 13.60% 5.27% 9.44% 0.07% 

5 3.75 5.95% 1.36% 12.07% 4.49% 8.28% 0.05% 

6 4.50 4.38% 0.84% 10.79% 3.88% 7.34% 0.04% 

7 5.25 3.22% 0.52% 9.71% 3.40% 6.55% 0.03% 

8 6.00 2.37% 0.32% 8.79% 3.02% 5.90% 0.02% 

9 6.75 1.74% 0.20% 8.01% 2.70% 5.35% 0.01% 

10 7.50 1.28% 0.12% 7.33% 2.44% 4.89% 0.01% 

11 8.25 0.94% 0.07% 6.75% 2.23% 4.49% 0.01% 

12 9.00 0.69% 0.05% 6.25% 2.05% 4.15% 0.005% 

13 9.75 0.51% 0.03% 5.81% 1.89% 3.85% 0.00% 

14 10.50 0.37% 0.02% 5.42% 1.76% 3.59% 0.00% 

15 11.25 0.28% 0.01% 5.08% 1.64% 3.36% 0.00% 

16 12.00 0.20% 0.01% 4.77% 1.54% 3.16% 0.00% 

17 12.75 0.15% 0.00% 4.50% 1.45% 2.97% 0.00% 

18 13.50 0.11% 0.00% 4.26% 1.37% 2.81% 0.00% 

19 14.25 0.08% 0.00% 4.04% 1.30% 2.67% 0.00% 

20 15.00 0.06% 0.00% 3.84% 1.23% 2.53% 0.00% 

30 22.50 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 0.82% 1.69% 0.00% 

40 30.00 0.00% 0.00% 1.92% 0.62% 1.27% 0.00% 

50 37.50 0.00% 0.00% 1.54% 0.49% 1.02% 0.00% 

60 45.00 0.00% 0.00% 1.28% 0.41% 0.85% 0.00% 

70 52.50 0.00% 0.00% 1.10% 0.35% 0.73% 0.00% 

80 60.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.96% 0.31% 0.63% 0.00% 

90 67.50 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 0.27% 0.56% 0.00% 

100 75.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.77% 0.25% 0.51% 0.00% 

120 90.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 0.21% 0.42% 0.00% 

140 105.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.55% 0.18% 0.36% 0.00% 

160 120.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.48% 0.15% 0.32% 0.00% 

180 135.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.43% 0.14% 0.28% 0.00% 

200 150.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.38% 0.12% 0.25% 0.00% 

220 165.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.11% 0.23% 0.00% 

240 180.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.10% 0.21% 0.00% 

260 195.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.09% 0.20% 0.00% 

267 200.25 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.09% 0.19% 0.00% 1 

Data presented in this table was calculated using the exponential decline model described in Ma (2005, 

http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/feb0502.htm ). 2

 Number of rows from the edge of the Corn Amylase (CA) field into a field of non-CA corn. 3 

The “Beyond Mean” refers to the percent of pollen mediated gene flow in non-CA corn from the distance indicated to 200 

meters from the edge of the CA field.
138

Appendix E. Food processing report submitted by 

Syngenta

Event 3272 Corn and Food Processing 

Event 3272 corn expresses the thermostable AMY797E alpha-amylase in the endosperm of 

the grain. This enzyme hydrolyzes starch to sugar during the liquefaction phase of dry grind 

ethanol production. As presented in Syngenta’s petition 05-280-01p, the compositional 

analysis of Event 3272 corn demonstrated it is not materially different from commercial corn 

hybrids. Although the presence of this alpha-amylase may have an impact on certain 

processed corn products due to the conversion of starch to dextrins and sugars during 

processing, neither the starch itself nor any other nutritional component of Event 3272 corn 

has been altered by the genetic modification. Furthermore, as demonstrated by Syngenta’s 

concluded consultation with the FDA (BNF 0095), there is no food safety issue associated 

with the possible presence of the AMY797E alpha-amylase enzyme in foods.

While beneficial for ethanol production, the activity of AMY797E alpha-amylase may either 

have no effect or potentially may have desirable or undesirable effects on certain types of

processed corn food products. AMY797E alpha-amylase is not able to act on the starch in 

the intact kernel. However, during or after processing with the addition of water and heat, 

enzyme activity could result in the conversion of some starch to dextrins and sugars. It is this 

potential for alpha-amylase starch hydrolyzing activity, during or after processing, that may 

impact properties of the corn or its components used in food.

However, the quality and properties of processed corn (e.g. dough handling characteristics) 

and finished processed food products (e.g. corn chips) are dependent on many factors. These 

include the characteristics and condition of the raw corn as well as specific process variables 

such as, cooking time, temperature, type of equipment, degree of grinding (particle size), 

moisture content and baking time. Furthermore, commercial hybrid seed companies have 

specifically developed corn hybrids with improved properties desirable by the food industry, 

e.g. (white, waxy, hard endosperm, high oil, low temperature dried, high extractable starch,

etc.) that have good yield and are adapted across regions of the U.S. corn belt. These hybrids 

are specified by buyers and end-users of corn for production and premiums are paid for 

growing, delivering, and meeting and maintaining the purity and quality standards of the 

corn. In addition to grain sourcing, a number of additional measures are employed 

throughout the food process including inspection and grading of the corn, cooking the corn, 

formulation and testing of the final food product. These commonly employed quality control 

measures ensure that corn food products are acceptable to consumers.

References:
139

Corn: Chemistry and Technology, Second Edition, White, P.J. and Johnson, L.A. eds., 

American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., 2003.

U.S. Grains Council, Value Enhanced Corns Report 2005/2006, available at

http://www.grains.org/galleries/technical_publications/USGC%20Value%20Enhanced%20C

orn%20Report%202006%20%20(English).pdf

Hallauer, A.R., Specialty Corn, Second Edition CRC Press, 2000.
140

Appendix F. Food processing report specific to 

masa submitted by Syngenta

Dilution of Corn in Masa Supply Chain 

To estimate the dilution effect of Corn amylase (CA) corn in non-CA (NCA) corn that could 

potentially reach a masa production facility, Syngenta conducted interviews with grain 

merchandisers to understand the movement of corn and the commingling with other corn that 

occurs during transport and storage. This information was further supplemented with 

Syngenta internal analysis of grain dilution patterns. 

Masa facilities typically source their grains from within 50 miles of the plant (C. Morley, 

Global Risk Management, Eden Prairie, MN,). White corn comprises approximately 80% of 

the grain used for masa and is typically contracted because it is higher in density, protein and 

oil and lower in moisture, thins and starch basis in comparison to yellow corn (Sparks 2003; 

U.S. Grains Council 2007). Yellow corn may also be contracted and is used for color and 

texture (Sparks 2003). While both white and yellow corn varieties are often contracted (up 

to 80%; C. Morley), if bought on the open market , the grain would either be obtained 

directly from a grower, local elevator or other local third party supplier. These same 

distribution channels would also apply to CA grain that is mistakenly delivered to a masa 

plant. Considering these likely distribution paths, Syngenta analyzed the grain dilution that 

occurs for each. 

The first case assumes a CA grower delivers a truck load of CA grain directly from a 

production field or on-farm silo to a masa plant. In this case the truck contains only CA corn 

was and is unloaded into a holding bin of non-CA corn at the plant. Drawing corn through a 

bin will commingle the grain 3x to 16x depending on bin size and fullness at the time of 

delivery (Syngenta unpubl. data). To be conservative, Syngenta estimates a dilution rate of 

5x for direct delivery. If, however, the grain first went to a local elevator and then later 

delivered to a masa facility it would have be drawn through two bins and one truck before 

being used by the facility. This dilution factor is estimated at approximately 50x, i.e., 

approximately 10x at the local elevator (larger bins) and 5x at the masa storage bin (10x time 

5x = 50x). 

It is important to note that there is no food safety issue associated with the possible presence 

of the alpha-amylase enzyme in foods as demonstrated by Syngenta’s concluded consultation 

with the FDA (BNF 0095). Furthermore, the likelihood of grain being mistakenly delivered 

directly to a masa plant by a grower from their farm is very remote. Growers will be 

contracted and paid a premium for producing CA grain and consequently, will have both 

contractual and financial incentives to deliver this grain to the ethanol plant. In addition, a 

large percentage of both white and yellow grain (up to 80%) is contracted and yellow 

represents just 20% of the total used to produce masa. Nonetheless, if a masa plant or other 
141

food processing company desires to determine whether their grain contains the alphaamylase enzyme a test method will be available for their use. 

References: 

U.S. Grains Council, Value Enhanced Corns Report 2005/2006, available at

http://www.grains.org/galleries/technical_publications/USGC%20Value%20Enhanced%20C

orn%20Report%202006%20%20(English).pdf

Sparks Companies, Inc., The US Corn Masa Industry: Structure and Implications for the 

Great Plains Region, Prepared for Agricultural Marketing Resource Center 

(http://www.agmrc.org ), Kansas State University, 2003. Available at 

http://www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/EC8E389D-7085-40ED-B8B2-

0B02B0AC4552/0/sparkswhitecornpaper.pdf
142

Appendix G. Bryson and Roberts report submitted 

by Syngenta

The Role of the Specialty Grain, Closed-Loop

Production System for Event 3272 in

Supporting a Finding of No Significant Impact

Under the National Environmental Policy Act

By

Nancy S. Bryson

and

Michael T. Roberts

December 19, 2007
143

I.

Introduction

The deregulation of new plant biotechnology events by APHIS is a federal action that 

requires evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).13 APHIS has 

historically found that the deregulation of such events in corn have not been “major federal 

actions significantly affecting the human environment.”14 NEPA compliance has been 

effectuated through an environmental assessment taking the “hard look” at the environmental 

effects of the action that has been required by reviewing courts,15 and a finding of no 

significant impact. 

Event 3272 fits comfortably into this body of NEPA analysis. Event 3272 corn is a 

novel transgenic corn variety that contains a genetically inserted thermostable alpha-amylase 

enzyme that facilitates the production of ethanol by the dry grind process. Alpha-amylases 

are ubiquitous in the environment. They have a long history of safe consumption by humans 

and animals and the particular alpha-amylase incorporated in Event 3272 has successfully 

completed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food safety consultation process. 

Event 3272 presents no unique or novel issues relating to the environmental impacts 

that have been identified by APHIS as relevant environmental effects for NEPA analysis.16 

Like other specialty corns in the marketplace, Event 3272 may not be suitable for use in 

some processing applications, but this does not change the NEPA analysis. Event 3272 will 

be grown and managed in the marketplace as a specialty grain produced in a tightlycontrolled, closed loop system. This system will prevent any effect arising from a lack of 

suitability for uses for which it is not intended from rising to a level of “significance” under 

the relevant NEPA factors of context and intensity. Accordingly, the deregulation of this 

event will not significantly affect the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. 

The commercial value of Event 3272 is for dedicated ethanol production in the dry 

grind process. The realization of that value will be ensured by a closed-loop system that 

reliably channels this corn from the production field into dry grind ethanol production and 

 13 42 U.S.C.§§ 4321 et seq.

14 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).

15 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).

16 USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Introduction of Genetically Engineered 

Organisms, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement – July 2007, 67– 90 (“DEIS”). 
144

away from the commercial channels intended for the production of processed corn food 

products such as masa. This process includes the Event 3272-specific Syngenta Stewardship 

Program, the well-established and recognized ability of the existing commercial marketplace 

to manage specialty grain product under contract and quality management systems, the 

enhanced legal traceability recordkeeping requirements of the Bioterrorism Act, and a 

reliable and widely available Event 3272 detection test.

Event 3272 will be deregulated in the context of a market replete with numerous other 

specialty grain products produced and marketed in the U.S. under well-defined identity 

preservation and traceability systems. As another specialty grain product, the intensity of the 

impact of its deregulation will be very low. As such, a finding of no significant impact can 

be made on the basis of the robust controls that govern these systems. 

II.

Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA requires that agencies undertaking a major Federal action “significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment” provide a detailed statement of the 

environmental impact of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that cannot 

be avoided, and alternatives to the action.”17 Where the significance of an action is 

uncertain, agencies may use an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) to identify, analyze, and 

evaluate the impacts of the proposed action. The EA will satisfy the NEPA obligation where 

it provides sufficient evidence and analysis to support a “finding of no significant impact 

(“FONSI”).”18 

In order to support such a finding, the agency must have: 

• accurately identified the relevant environmental concern;

• taken a hard look at the problem in preparing the environmental assessment, and

• made a convincing case for the FONSI.

If there is an impact of true significance, the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement can be avoided only if changes are made that reduce the impacts of the action to a 

minimum.19

 17 Id. 

 The test of whether an action “significantly” affects the environment requires 

18 See e.g., Coalition on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Dole, 826 F. 2d 60 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

19 Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F. 3d 339, 340-41 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
145

considerations of both context and intensity.20 The term “context” refers to the setting 

within which the proposed action takes place.21 In considering context, an agency must look 

at the significance of an action “analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole 

(human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality.”22 The term 

“intensity” refers to “the severity of the impact.”23

 20 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.

21 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a). 

22 Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27).

23 Id. With regard to the intensity element of the “significance” determination, the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations provide the following ten (10) factors to guide the analysis:

(1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency 

believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 

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

(3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, 

prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly 

controversial. 

(5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique 

or unknown risks. 

(6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or 

represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 

(7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant 

impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the 

environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small 

component parts. 

(8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in 

or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant 

scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 

(9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that 

has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

(10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the 

protection of the environment.
146

A recent unreported decision24 from the Northern District of California in Geertson 

Seed Farms v. Johanns held that APHIS was required to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to support a decision to grant deregulation to a glyphosate-resistant (i.e., 

Round-up Ready) alfalfa product, and rejected the APHIS EA and FONSI as insufficient.25 

The court examined the factors of “context” and “intensity” in light of the NEPA goals of 

“attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to 

health and safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences” and “maintain[ing], 

wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual 

choice.”26 The court concluded that substantial and unanswered questions existed regarding 

gene transmission to non-genetically engineered alfalfa, the development of alfalfa weeds 

resistant to herbicides, and increased use of glyphosate.27 The court held that the possibility 

that the deregulation of Round-up Ready alfalfa will degrade the human environment by 

eliminating a farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa and a consumer’s 

choice to consume such food is a significant impact that requires an EIS. 

By contrast, the Syngenta Event 3272 presents a fundamentally different situation. 

Unlike the alfalfa industry, the segmentation and specialization of corn production has 

generated a suite of standard industry practices in the U.S. grain marketing system that has 

been shown to facilitate coexistence among different varieties and obviate the potential gene 

flow consequences posed by alfalfa, as addressed in Geertson. Event 3272 corn is being 

released in an environment in which the diversity of corn is closely guarded, and continually 

enhanced. This is evident from the commercial channels and identity preservation programs 

that have been developed in this modern grain system to manage the co-existence of a variety 

of corn products.

 

40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b).

24 Unreported decisions issued by the courts are binding on the parties, but are not generally accepted as 

precedent - even by the issuing court.

25 Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, No. C 06-01075 (N.D. Cal., Civ. Feb. 13, 2007).

26 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(3)-(4).

27 Geertson, supra note 13.
147

III.

Modern U.S. Grain System: Identity Preservation and Co-Existence

A. Factors Enabling Identity Preservation and Co-Existence

The modern U.S. grain system is characterized by identity preservation, product 

differentiation, and market segmentation.28 This system has evolved in response to the 

development of a variety of specialty grain crops that require some form of segregation from 

conventional grain commodities in order to maintain their value to the end users. Examples 

include popcorn, waxy (high amylopectin) corn, high oil corn, high protein and modified 

protein corn, sweet corn, white corn, blue corn, Indian corn, higher fermentable corn and 

high amylose corn.

29 As a result, robust identity preservation systems with separate 

marketing channels prevent inadvertent commingling of specialty crops.

A number of factors have helped create this segmented market, including 

biotechnology, consumer preferences and demand, global concerns for safety and quality, 

and the increasing demand for food products originating from diverse sources.30 For 

example, the corn wet-milling industry produces starches and sweeteners or syrups tailored 

to specific food and industrial uses. This has led to an increased demand for trait-specific 

corn types such as high-amylose corn.31

Innovations in transportation, logistics, and information technologies and changes in 

the international regulatory environment have also facilitated the marketing of differentiated 

grains. Web-based monitoring software can remotely assess the quantity and quality of grain 

 28 See generally Aziz Elbehri, The Changing Face of the U.S. Grain System: Differentiation and Identity 

Preservation Trends, USDA ERS (Feb 2007) at 1, available at www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err35/err35.pdf.

29 U.S. Grains Council, Value Enhanced Corns Report 2005/2006, available at 

www.grains.org/.../technical_publications/USGC%20Value%20Enhanced%20Corn%20Report%202006%20%

20(English).pdf

30 See Linus U. Opara, Traceability in agriculture and food supply: a review of basic concepts, technological 

implications, and future prospects, Food and Agriculture & Environment Vol. 1 (1), 101 (2003).

31 See generally Kevin B. Hicks, et al., Potential New Uses for Corn Fiber, Corn Utilization and Technology 

Conference (2002), available at 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=132521; Corn Refiners 

Association, Starch Products, available at www.corn.org/starch.htm; Corn Refiners Association, Sweeteners, 

available at http://www.corn.org/sweeteners.htm.
148

inventories in a supplier’s storage facilities. Communication networks and increased reliance 

on the Internet are cutting the costs of differentiation.32 The implementation of the European 

Union food traceability and labeling directives33 and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety34

have compelled agribusinesses, particularly grain elevators and grain warehouses at the front 

of the supply chain, to track closely shipments and supplies.35

B. Identity Preservation Tools

Identity preservation or product differentiation relies on source verification –

traceability, product tracking, and process verification. Traceability then is an important tool 

that “helps facilitate the identification of product(s) and/or batches.”36 Agricultural 

traceability has been defined as the 

collection, documentation, maintenance, and application of 

information related to all processes in the supply chain in a 

manner that provides guarantees to the consumer and other 

stakeholders on the origin, location, and life history of a 

product as well as assisting in crises management in the event 

of a safety and quality breach.37

 32 Elberhri, supra note 16, at 5.

 

33 See generally Margaret Rosso Grossman, Traceability and Labeling of Genetically Modified 

Crops, Food, and Feed in the European Union , 1 J. OF FOOD L. & POL'Y 43 (2005) (discussing 

traceability, labeling, and coexistence measures in the European Union).

34 The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted on January 29, 2000, signed by 107 parties, and by 

September 2003 was ratified by 50 countries, the minimum required for the Protocol to enter into force. 

Countries that ratified the Protocol became Parties to the Protocol and are required to comply with and 

implement all of its provisions. Countries that have not signed but that export Living Modified Organisms 

(LMOs) to member countries are encouraged to comply with the Protocol’s provisions implemented in the 

importing country.

35 See Elberhri, supra note 16, at 25.

36 Opara, supra note 18, at 103.

37 Id. at 102.
149

A major feature in a traceable supply chain is the ability to trace-back or trace-forward and 

track the physical location of the product in the overall supply chain.38 

Commercial contracts provide another important tool for product differentiation in the 

modern grain system. Contracts for identity preserved grains govern relations and establish 

stewardship controls between farmers and seed suppliers, handlers, intermediary firms, and 

processors. These contracts are typically uniform and establish terms for specific variety, 

delivery time, delivery place, dedicated storage, and quality control.39

C. Private Market Initiatives

To retain their competitive advantage in the global market and to address domestic 

food safety and quality issues, U.S. grain producers and handlers have relied on the contract 

and traceability tools described above to implement methods to produce, handle, and market 

trait specific grains, including documentation systems that trace raw materials back to the 

farm. Traceability and documentation are considered core competencies for grain 

operations.40 

These competencies are especially well developed for value-added grains or specialty 

corn products. These value-added products are produced in large volumes and are segregated 

by channeling.41 Segregation by channeling flows from the farm to the transporting truck to 

the grain elevator and commingling is minimized by running equipment empty before 

switching varieties or designating certain days of the week or alternate sites for receiving and 

shipping these specialty crops.42 Crops handled by this method include a variety of valueadded crops, such as white, waxy, yellow food-grade, high-oil, non-GM corn, and durum 

wheat grown in the Southwest.43

 38 See id.

 

39 See Elbehri, supra note 16, at 18.

40 See Tim Herrman, White Paper on Traceability in the U.S. Grain and Plant Protein Feed Ingredient 

Industries (July 2, 2002), at 1, available at www.oznet.ksu.edu/grsiext/White%20Paper%20CVM.PDF.

41 See Elbehri, supra note 16, at 6.

42 Id. at 6-7.

43 Id. at 7.
150

Additional identity-preservation controls are found in what is commonly referred to 

as a “closed-loop system.” This system is used to preserve the identity of value-added grain 

products, such as high-amylose corn. As noted by the Economic Research Service (ERS) for 

the USDA, a closed-loop delivery system has distinct advantages over segregation by 

channeling: 

A closed-loop system provides more controls than mere 

channeling, and better protects the value of a specialty crop 

such as high-sucrose soybeans, high-oleic soybeans, or highamylose corn. Production occurs almost exclusively under a 

contract between the grower and end-user. Typically, these 

production contracts mandate delivery of all production to a 

specified location, and require midseason inspections and 

return of all unused seed to the seed company. Third-party 

auditors also verify that the system is in fact a closed loop and 

that all requirements have been adhered to throughout the

system.44

This closed-loop system for the delivery of value-added, specialized corn or grain 

product clearly contrasts with the marketing of commodity corn, primarily yellow dent corn. 

Commodity corn is used for animal feed and is processed by wet and dry milling industries 

for numerous and diverse food and industrial products, including ethanol. Specialty corn, on 

the other hand, especially in the closed-loop system, is handled differently than commodity 

corn throughout the supply chain – from seed production to grain handling – in order to 

ensure that a sufficient quantity of high quality corn is produced and delivered to the enduser for its particular use. This control also helps to ensure that the specialty corn is not used 

in unsuitable applications, which could result in process breakdowns or products with altered 

or undesired characteristics.

D. Supplemental Mechanisms, Standards, and Recordkeeping Requirements

In addition to private initiatives, a variety of supporting mechanisms, standards, and 

legal requirements support product identification and the management of coexistence in the 

U.S. grain system today. 

1. BIO Quality Management Program Guide

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) recently launched a new 

 

44 Id. at 7.
151

program, Excellence Through Stewardship: Advancing Best Practices in Agricultural 

Biotechnology, the first industry-coordinated effort to address product stewardship and 

quality management.45 This industry stewardship program is described in the Quality 

Management Program Guide to Maintaining Plant Product Integrity.

46 The guide is for 

member companies and others involved in agricultural biotechnology research and 

development to use in understanding and implementing their own best practices. The Guide 

provides detailed guidance on how to develop and implement a quality management program 

that will assist product developers in maintaining plant product integrity from discovery to 

commercialization and post-market activities. It includes a series of comprehensive and 

informative educational modules that can be adapted to the specific activities pertinent to the 

user’s own operations, including incorporation into existing quality management systems. 

Common to all of the modules is an emphasis on the importance of product identification and 

traceability.47

Syngenta supports the new BIO stewardship program. As a company, Syngenta has 

adopted the following best practices and quality management principles to serve as a guide 

when it launches new products:

• Syngenta will conduct market and trade assessments to identify key 

import markets for all of its biotech products prior to product 

commercialization.

• For each biotech product, at the time U.S. submissions are completed, 

Syngenta will begin to consult with the major, relevant trade and value 

chain stakeholders on detailed plans for pre-commercial activities, and 

full-scale commercialization.

• Syngenta will meet all necessary regulatory requirements in key 

exporting countries (where the seed will be commercialized) and 

importing countries that have functioning regulatory systems, which 

currently include the United States, Canada and Japan, prior to 

commercialization, unless determined otherwise in consultation with 

 45 See Excellence Through Stewardship website, BIO Launches Excellence Through StewardshipSM Program 

Initiative Introduces Best Practices For Quality Management of Plant Biotechnology Products, July 25, 2007, 

available at http://excellencethroughstewardship.org/press/newsitem.asp?id=2007_0725_01.

46See id.

47 See id.
152

the value chain that a dedicated grain management system is workable 

for a specific product.

• Syngenta will make available prior to commercialization a reliable 

detection method or test that enables event identity in the crop.

• Syngenta is committed to the principles of good stewardship, which 

are exemplified through the responsible management of Syngenta 

products across their lifecycle, from research through development and 

commercialization to their discontinuation and withdrawal from the 

market.

• Syngenta will continue to work at the global level with the value chain 

to engage in efforts to harmonize science-based agriculture 

biotechnology regulatory approaches to achieve Global Adventitious 

Presence tolerances and synchronous authorizations.48

2. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and 

Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assuring that food is not 

adulterated – i.e. poisonous, deleterious, unclean, decomposed, exposed to unsanitary 

conditions, or contaminated with filth.49 Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 

the FDA’s authority to deter, prevent, and respond expeditiously to food safety emergencies 

was enhanced by enactment of the Bioterrorism Act.50 The Act adopts the central feature of 

a traceable supply chain by requiring “step-back/step-forward” recordkeeping for all grain 

product moving within commercial channels.51

 48 Syngenta website, Biotech Launch Policy Syngenta Implementation Principles, available at 

Entities in the grain industry, including grain 

elevators, feed mills, grain processors, feed ingredient manufacturers, retail feed stores, feed 

http://www.syngenta-us.com/scenter/index.asp?nav=biotech_policy_main.

49 See 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(1)-(7), (c).

50 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-188 

(codified in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).

51 See 21 U.S.C. § 350(c).
153

dealers, and transporters (truckers, railroads, and barge lines) are required to establish and 

maintain records containing information to help identify the grain product’s immediate 

previous sources and the immediate subsequent recipients.52 Guidance from the FDA and 

grain industry provides useful, practical guidance on how to deal with commingling, lot code 

or numbers, and an adequate description of product to ensure that the recordkeeping 

requirements are lawfully met.53

As more fully outlined in the companion white paper detailing these recordkeeping 

requirements, the Bioterrorism Act further bolsters identity preservation in the U.S. value-added 

grain industry.54

3. American Institute of Baking Quality Systems Management

Program Guide (AIB)

The American Institute of Baking (AIB) is a non-profit corporation, founded in 

1919 by the North American wholesale and retail baking industries as a technology center for 

bakers and food processors.55 The AIB has introduced to the grain handling industry its 

Quality Systems Evaluation (QSE), a comprehensive audit that thoroughly evaluates a 

supplier’s quality system.56

 52 See Establishment and Maintenance of Records Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 

Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, 69 Fed. Reg. 71, 561-62 (Dec. 9, 2004) (codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 1, 

11).

 The QSE covers such elements as raw materials, process control, 

process verification, finished product acceptability, storage and shipping, training, plant 

programs, and quality policies. Each grain facility is expected to pass an AIB Food Safety 

audit. In 2000, Farmland Grain Division first adopted QSE as its quality management system. 

53 See FDA, Questions and Answers Regarding Establishment and Maintenance of Records (Edition 4) (Sept. 

2006), available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/recguid4.html; See National Grain and Feed Association 

(NGFA), FDA’s Bioterrorism Recordkeeping Requirements . . . A Compliance Guide for Grain Elevators, Feed 

Manufacturers, Feed Dealers, Integrators, Grain Processors and Transporters . . . , April 2006.

54 See White Paper, The Bioterrorism Act of 2002: A Valuable Tool to Identity Preservation in the U.S. ValueAdd Grain Industry (Dec. 2007).

55 See AIB website, https://www.aibonline.org/.

56 See P.F. Stevenson, AIB’s Quality Systems Evaluation, presented at International Quality Grains Conference, 

July 2004, available at http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~grainlab/IQGC1/proc/text/stevenson.htm.
154

Since then, many other grain handlers have utilized QSE as their template to achieve AIB or 

ISO recognition.57

4. USDA Initiatives

The mission of the USDA GIPSA is to facilitate the marketing of grains, oilseeds, 

and related agricultural commodities.58 The process Verification Program offered by GIPSA ensures 

traceability and managing risk to settle disputes. GIPSA recently implemented a Proficiency 

Program to evaluate the performance of laboratories that test cereals, oilseeds, and feed ingredients 

for the presence of GM events in the U.S.59 Other USDA initiatives are documented in recent ERS 

reports.60

5. American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) Guide to Seed Quality 

Management Practices

The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) was founded in 1883 and consists of 

about 850 companies involved in seed production and distribution, plant breeding, and related 

industries.61 ASTA is drafting a Guide to Seed Quality Management Practices that provides 

general guidance for the development of quality management practices for use in the 

development and production of seed products intended for food, feed, or fiber use. The guide 

is intended to establish and maintain the specific identity of a seed product and the purity of 

that seed product by using appropriate quality management measures.62

 57 See id.

Syngenta supports the 

58 See USDA GIPSA website, 

http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/GIPSA/webapp?area=home&subject=landing&topic=landing

59 See United States Department of Agriculture Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, 

Federal Grain Inspection Service Directive No. 9180.79, Jan. 29, 2007, available at 151.121.3.117/referencelibrary/directives/9180-79.pdf.

60 See e.g., USDA ERS Report, Traceability in the U.S. Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry Studies, 

Mar. 2004 (Grains and Oilseeds, pp. 22-26), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER830/.

61 See American Seed Trade Association website, About ASTA, available at http://www.amseed.com/about.asp.

62 The Guide to Seed Quality Management Practices is still in the form of a working draft and has not yet been 

published.
155

efforts of ASTA, as it provides another example of efforts in the food industry to preserve 

product identification. 

IV.

Syngenta Stewardship Program for Event 3272 Corn

A. Description of Event 3272 Corn

Event 3272 corn has been genetically modified to express an optimized alpha-amylase 

enzyme specifically developed for use in dry grind ethanol production. This product will serve 

as a source of the amylase enzyme in the dry grind ethanol process, replacing the addition of 

liquid microbially produced enzyme and significantly improving the overall efficiency of dry 

grind ethanol production.63 In addition, it will enable process flexibility that could generate real 

benefits at multiple points in the ethanol plant, such as increased ethanol yield, reduced energy 

costs, reduced water usage, and reduced chemical usage. Commercialization could also increase 

energy yield of corn per acre, ease current tight markets for corn, and contribute substantially to 

the advancement of next generation biofuels.64

Alpha-amylases are ubiquitous in the environment and are safe. There is a long history 

of safe consumption by humans and animals and/or exposure to both naturally occurring and 

commercially produced alpha-amylases. They are naturally present in microorganisms, plants 

(including corn), and animals. They are commercially produced for food processing uses such as 

baking bread, brewing beer, and producing corn syrup. In addition, a co-product of ethanol 

production is sold as an animal feed ingredient. Event 3272 has successfully completed the FDA

food safety consultation process.65

 63 Enzymes such as alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added during the ethanol production process because 

they provide a fast, safe and economical conversion of starch to sugars. A more efficient conversion of starch 

translates into process efficiencies in ethanol production. The improved alpha-amylase facilitates this more 

efficient starch to ethanol conversion. 

There is no food safety issue associated with the possible 

presence of the AMY797E alpha-amylase enzyme in foods.

64 See generally John M. Urbanchuk, Economic Impact Analysis of Event 3272 Corn on Dry Mill Ethanol 

Production, CBI Deleted Copy prepared for Syngenta Biotechology, Inc. (July 2007). The United States ethanol 

industry has grown at a tremendous rate, driven by energy security, the high price of foreign oil, the renewable 

energy mandates of the Energy Bill of 2005, and the President’s Biofuels Initiative. More than over 100 dry 

mill ethanol plants (the majority of capacity) are currently dedicated specifically to the production of ethanol, 

with a minimum of an additional 50 planned or under construction. The ethanol industry used an estimated 1.5 

billion bushels of corn in 2005 (14% of total corn demand), with ethanol currently representing the third most 

important market for US corn, after feed and export uses. This explosive growth in ethanol has created a 

significant domestic market for US corn producers. See id.

65 See Letter from Laura M. Tarantino, Ph.D., Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition, to Ann Tuttle, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. (Aug. 2007) 

(acknowledging that based on the information available, Event 3272 corn did not raise safety or other issues that 

would require pre-market review or approval by the FDA). 
156

B. Utilization of Event 3272 Corn

Notwithstanding its safety as food, Event 3272 will be commercialized for the value it 

brings to ethanol production. In order to capture the highest value of Event 3272 corn, it will be 

branded, marketed, and sold for that use – i.e., with an indication of its unique characteristic 

relating to the expression of an alpha-amylase. This commercial approach is comparable to the 

marketing of many other specialty corns. 

It is expected that Event 3272 corn may be unsuitable for some processing 

applications for which it will not be branded, marketed or sold. Specialty corns, such as 

waxy corn, are developed for a specific purpose and generally are unsuitable for use in other 

applications. The AMY797E alpha-amylase enzyme in Event 3272 corn is not able to act on 

the starch in the intact kernel and neither the starch itself nor any other nutritional or 

functional component of Event 3272 corn has been altered by the genetic modification.66 

However, during or after processing, enzyme activity could result in the conversion of some 

starch to dextrins and sugars. It is this potential for alpha-amylase starch hydrolyzing 

activity, during or after processing, that may make it unsuitable for some applications. For 

example, Event 3272 could have an effect in alkaline cooking, the process used to produce 

masa. Masa flour and dough are used to make tortillas and chips. The effect decreases the

handling characteristics of the masa dough and the acceptability of the appearance of the 

finished product produced from that dough.67 

The strict grain sourcing procedures in the masa industry make it highly 

unlikely that Event 3272 corn would be diverted to a masa facility. The masa 

industry has developed quality control measures to meet production requirements, 

 

66 As presented in the Syngenta Petition for deregulation of Event 3272 corn, compositional analysis 

demonstrated it is not materially different from commercial corn hybrids. This is in contrast to the specialty 

corns in which the starch, oil, protein, or color content itself is intentionally modified. See Syngenta Petition for 

the Determination of Non-Regulated Status: Corn Rootworm Protected Transformation Event MIR 604, APHIS, 

Docket No. 2006-0157-0003 (Jan. 10, 2007), available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main.

67 The information contained in this paragraph is documented by the September 5, 2007 Syngenta presentation 

to BRS. See generally, L.W. Rooney & S.O. Serna-Saldivar, Food Use of Whole Corn and Dry-Milled 

Fractions in Corn: Chemistry and Technology, (P.J. White & L.A. Johnson eds.) (2003); U.S. Grains Council, 

Value Enhanced Corns Report 2005/2006, available at 

www.grains.org/.../technical_publications/USGC%20Value%20Enhanced%20Corn%20Report%202006%20%

20(English).pdf; A.R. Hallauer, Specialty Corn, (2nd ed. CRC Press 2000); Sparks Companies, Inc., The US 

Corn Masa Industry: Structure and Implications for the Great Plains Region, Prepared for Agricultural 

Marketing Resource Center, http://www.agmrc.org, Kansas State Univ. (2003), available at 

www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/EC8E389D-7085-40ED-B8B2-0B02B0AC4552/0/sparkswhitecornpaper.pdf.
157

prevent process disruptions, and ensure industry standards for finished products are 

maintained. The use of dedicated supply contracts limits the total supply of foodquality yellow corn from the open market used in masa production to 4%.68 

Commercial hybrid seed companies have specifically developed corn hybrids with 

improved alkaline-cooking properties such as hard endosperm corn that have good 

yield and are adapted across regions of the U.S. corn belt. These hybrids are 

specified by buyers and end-users of corn for masa production and premiums are paid 

for growing, delivering, and meeting and maintaining the purity and quality standards 

of this corn. In addition to grain sourcing, a number of additional measures are 

employed throughout the process including grading, inspection of the corn, cooking 

the corn, handling the masa, formulation, and testing of the final food product. These 

commonly employed quality control measures ensure that masa products and finished 

food products meet industry standards.69 These market controls in the masa industry 

make the likelihood of Event 3272 corn being mistakenly delivered directly to a masa 

plant by a grower from their farm extremely remote. 

Even if corn is somehow diverted to a masa facility, other checks reduce the 

possibility of an effect. Syngenta will make available prior to commercialization a 

reliable detection method or test that enables crop identity verification for intended 

use by corn food processors capable of detecting Event 3272 in any yellow corn 

purchased from the open-market, the only possible source of Event 3272 in the corn 

supply. Finally, dilution rates would further minimize the possible effect. In the 

unlikely event that corn were directly delivered from the farm to a masa facility, it 

would be co-mingled in a masa storage bin, and depending on the actual size of the 

bin and fullness at the time of delivery, the dilution rate would be a conservative 

estimate of 5x. Corn entering a masa facility through a local elevator would be drawn 

through two bins and one truck before being used by the facility. The dilution rate 

would be approximately 50x, 10x at the local elevator (due to larger bins) and 5x at 

the masa storage bin (10x times 5x = 50x).70

 68 Approximately 80% of the corn used in masa production is food-quality white corn, while food-quality 

yellow corn constitutes only 20% of the total used to produce masa. Both types of corn are typically grown by 

producers under contract with major buyers or end-users. In fact, of the 20% drawn from the yellow corn 

market, 80% is grown under dedicated supply contracts with the masa plant, leaving only 20% as sourced from 

the open market. This means that only 4% of the total supply of corn used in masa production is food-quality 

yellow corn from the open market.

69 See generally L.W. Rooney, supra note 55; U.S. Grains Council, supra note 55; Sparks, supra note 55.

70 These dilution factors were calculated based on Syngenta’s interviews with grain merchandisers to 

understand the movement of corn and the commingling with other corn that occurs during transport and storage. 

This information was further supplemented with Syngenta’s internal analysis of grain dilution patterns. 
158

C. Closed-Loop System

The already low likelihood that Event 3272 corn would be diverted from the farm to the 

ethanol plant is reduced even further by the strict controls evident in the commercial system 

developed by Syngenta for this product. Event 3272 will be commercialized solely in a 

traditional closed-loop system, replete with effective control points. The system relies on 

concentrated acreage, contract grown product within the geographic footprint of the ethanol 

plant, stewardship mandates, and grower agreements for delivery to ensure a smooth, 

uninterrupted, and verifiable supply of grain to end users – dry grind ethanol plants. 

These dry grain ethanol plants will contract directly with growers in their geographic area 

or indirectly through third party grain suppliers for the production and delivery of the Event 3272 

corn. These grower grain contracts will specify a delivery location that either will be an ethanol 

plant or a storage site (country elevator) within a specified radius, a delivery date for which a 

window for delivery will be specified, and the acres or bushels per acre to be delivered. 71 The 

delivery will be made either by the growers delivering the corn directly to the ethanol plant or to 

an elevator or truck transporter. Syngenta will sell hybrids with Event 3272 only to growers with 

a valid contract with an ethanol plant and who execute a Syngenta Stewardship Agreement that 

will ensure and facilitate appropriate cultivation, handling, detection, communication, inspection, 

and audits. The contracts in this closed-loop system will contain legal and financial incentives 

for compliance. 

Syngenta’s closed-loop system diverts Event 3272 away from the production of 

processed corn food products such as masa (tortillas and chips). The stewardship controls 

imposed in Syngenta’s closed-loop system are designed to prevent the contracted grower from 

inadvertently delivering Event 3272 to a masa facility or to a local elevator that is an openmarket supplier to a masa facility. 

D. Stewardship Roles and Responsibilities Within Closed-Loop System

In this closed-loop system, the principle contract actors – the producer, the

grower, and the ethanol plant (end user) – each have specific stewardship roles and 

responsibilities. These stewardship roles and responsibilities are consistent with Syngenta’s 

adoption of the best practices and quality management principles derived from the BIO 

stewardship program and are delineated below.

Syngenta (stewardship roles and responsibilities):

 71 A “country grain elevator” is a grain elevator that services a limited geographic area. See John S. Seitz, 

Memorandum, Nov. 1995 at 3, available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t5/memoranda/grainfnl.pdf. It is very rare 

even in the commodity corn market for corn to be delivered from distances greater than 100 miles from the 

plants and only occurs where there is a shortage of local corn due to drought.
159

• license the use of Event 3272 corn product to growers;

• sell Event 3272 corn hybrids only to licensed growers with a valid contract 

with an ethanol plant or approved third party grain company that supplies corn 

amylase to the ethanol plant;

● ensure that grain contract includes stewardship agreement;

• provide incentive to grower for producing and delivery of Event 3272 corn 

product;

• provide stewardship guide to producers and handlers on the cultivation and 

handling of the Event 3272 corn product;

• provide specific procedures for the handling of any excess grain;

• ensure the domestic consumption of DDGS prior to export market approvals;

• make available appropriate detection methods; and,

• develop and implement a communication program.

Grower (stewardship roles and responsibilities):

• execute delivery contract with ethanol plant;

• execute stewardship contract with Syngenta;

• follow Syngenta stewardship guide on cultivation; and,

• follow Syngenta requirement to divert excess grain to appropriate use.

Ethanol Plant (stewardship roles and responsibilities):

• contract with growers to supply Event 3272 corn product; and,

• ensure domestic consumption of DDGS prior to export market approvals;

These stewardship roles and responsibilities in concert with the contract relationships 

between the entities in the closed-loop system and the backstop mechanisms minimize the 

risk of inadvertent delivery of Event 3272 corn and commingling.

V.

The Deregulation of Event 3272 is not a Major Federal Action
160

As demonstrated above, the deregulation of Event 3272 will result in the market entry 

of another specialty corn product that is identity preserved, safe for food and feed, produced 

in a closed loop system, and carefully managed consistent with the robust suite of safeguards 

in place in the market for value-added specialty grain products. NEPA analysis for this event 

necessarily begins with an identification of the relevant environmental concerns, a hard look 

at the significance of those concerns for a specialty grain product, and an explanation of the 

conclusions resulting from that hard look.72

A. Identification of Relevant Environmental Concerns

As described in the July 7, 2007 draft programmatic EIS, APHIS has identified three 

general categories of effects that are relevant to its assessment of risks to the human 

environment under NEPA. These include potential changes in weediness and invasiveness 

(including gene flow and persistence in the environment); potential effects of plants on the 

soil; and impacts on human health (including human allergenicity).73

B. A “Hard-Look” Analysis of the Effect of the Identity-Preserved, ClosedLoop Specialty Grain Management System, Legal Recordkeeping 

Requirements and Supporting Quality Management Systems.

The hard look required of the agency prior to issuing a FONSI is a critical evaluation 

of whether the impacts of the action are significant in terms of context and intensity. Context 

refers to the setting within which the proposed action takes place.74 In considering context, 

an agency must look at the significance of an action analyzed in several contexts such as 

society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the 

locality.”75 The term “intensity” refers to “the severity of the impact”76

 72 Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, supra note 3, at 340 – 41. 

 judged on a number 

of factors. As demonstrated below, the deregulation of Event 3272 is not significant on either 

factor. 

73 DEIS, supra note 4, at 67 – 90. 

74 49 C.F.R. §1508.27(a).

75 Marsh, supra note 10, at 374 (quoting 40 C.F.R. §1508.27). 

76 Id. 
161

1. Potential Changes in Weediness and Invasiveness

Event 3272 contains an added alpha-amylase enzyme that facilitates ethanol 

production. This creates a valuable output trait – better suiting this specialty corn to the 

production of ethanol in the dry grind process – but it does nothing to make it a better 

competitor vis-à-vis other corn. Accordingly, it presents none of the weediness and 

invasiveness concerns associated with plant-incorporated protectants that provide resistance 

to pests or herbicides. 

Event 3272 does present the same gene flow potential between itself and other corn 

varieties that is acknowledged as a scientific reality in the draft EIS.77 This is not a concern 

respecting gene flow between corn and other species. As noted in the environmental 

assessment supporting the deregulation of MIR604 (corn rootworm), corn does not have 

weedy relatives with which it outcrosses in the United States.78 With respect to the impact of 

gene flow between different varieties of corn, it is important to note that corn is an 

intensively cultivated and managed crop with which producers have a great deal of 

experience. The draft EIS documents the well-understood mechanisms for effective 

management of this gene flow potential in seed production, noting that “[I]solation and 

borders effectively limit the level of unintended off-types in the final product and their use is 

supported by decades of experience with plant breeders and the seed industry.”79

The record shows that with respect to the potential for gene flow between Event 3272 

corn and other corn varieties, the Syngenta Stewardship Program provides for all contracted 

growers to include 12 border rows in the harvest of Event 3272 corn to address adventitious 

pollination. The record further shows that 97.12% of adventitious pollination occurs in the 

first 12 rows. This preventative measure means that, by including the first 12 non-cornamylase rows on all sides of the field in the harvest of the Event 3272 corn, 99.9% of 

amylase containing grain will be accounted for in the dedicated grain supply system and 

directed to dry grind ethanol production.80

 77 See DEIS, supra note 4, at 64.

78 See Environmental Assessment for Prosposed Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Gentically 

Engineered for Insect Resistance, APHIS, Docket No. 2006-0157-0003 (Jan. 10, 2007), available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main.

79 DEIS, supra note 4, at 64. 

80 This point was developed in the September 6, 2007 Syngenta presentation to the Biotechnology Regulatory 

Service (BRS) and in the November 16, 2007 Syngenta presentation to USDA.
162

To the extent adventitious pollination result in corn amylase entering the yellow dent 

corn commodity supply, it will be limited to 0.1% of the grown corn amylase. As discussed 

above, these minute quantities will present no food safety issues and will not affect the 

suitability of yellow dent commodity corn for corn processing. This 0.1% will be diluted at 

least 5 times, and possibly up to 50 times, with non-amylase yellow dent corn prior to 

entering masa production. This is far below the 0.1% at which corn amylase begins to affect 

masa production. Moreover, as affirmed by APHIS, it will not become a seed production 

issue given the sophistication of current seed production techniques, isolation distances, and 

the like. 

Accordingly, this effect is not significant in either context or intensity.

2. Potential Effects of Plants on the Soil

There is no suggestion in the scientific evidence presented in support of Syngenta’s 

petition to deregulate or in the literature that Event 3272 corn would have any effect on the 

soil.81 What the record does show is that alpha amylases are ubiquitous in the environment 

and are safe. They are naturally present in microorganisms, plants (including corn), and 

animals. The FDA food safety consultation process indicates that the Event 3272 corn 

presents no different issues for toxicity or allergenicity.82

Accordingly, this effect is not significant in either context or intensity. 

3. Impacts on Human Health

As discussed above, the successful conclusion of the FDA food safety consultation 

demonstrates that there are no effects of concern for human health.83 Accordingly, this effect 

is not significant in either context or intensity. 

4. Functionality of Event 3272 for Production of Processed Corn 

Products

The suitability of a new specialty corn biotechnology event for use in markets for 

which it is not intended has not been identified by APHIS as a factor considered to be a 

 81 See Syngenta Petition, supra note 54, at 87-88; 94-95.

82 See FDA Letter, supra note 53.

83 See id.
163

relevant environmental effect in the draft EIS for purposes of NEPA analysis in support of 

deregulation.84 This approach is consistent with Supreme Court precedent on the types of 

environmental effects that trigger the NEPA procedural assessment requirements. “[T]he 

theme of [§ 4332(c) of NEPA] is sounded by the adjective ‘environmental’ . . . the context of 

the statute shows that Congress was talking about the physical environment – the world 

around us, so to speak.”85

The suitability effect is a commercial use issue, not an effect on the physical 

environment. Unlike the Geerston court’s evaluation of the alfalfa deregulation decision, the 

deregulation of Event 3272 does not present any substantial or unanswered questions 

regarding gene transmission to non-genetically engineered corn. Corn is an intensively 

managed annual crop into which multiple biotech events have already been introduced. 

Alfalfa, by contrast, is a perennial crop pollinated by bees to which herbicide tolerance is 

being newly introduced. Nor does deregulation of Event 3272 present any issue relating to 

the development of additional pesticide resistance or increased use of herbicides. Event 3272 

introduces a special output trait. As noted above, it does not enhance the competitiveness or 

resistance of this corn plant. 

Moreover, even if APHIS were to determine that commercial use issues should be 

included in its analysis of relevant environmental effects, the functionality effects of Event 

3272 have been effectively mitigated by requiring steps to ensure that this specialty grain is 

directed to its economically productive use and away from use as an ingredient in certain 

applications. The identity-preserved, closed-loop specialty grain management systems, grain 

traceability recordkeeping requirements, and supporting quality management systems in use 

in the grain management industry today are fully capable of ensuring the separation 

necessary to avoid any unintended commingling and associated commercial use effect. 

Treated as mitigation measures, these steps are sufficient to bring the potential adverse 

suitability impacts below the level of significance.

Accordingly, Syngenta’s decision to commercialize Event 3272 as a specialty grain 

produced in a closed-loop system would be fully supported by an EA and FONSI even if the 

functionality effect were considered to be an effect on the human environment for purposes 

of NEPA analysis. It is well-established that even where an effect may be considered to be 

significant if unmitigated, an EA and FONSI will satisfy NEPA’s “hard look” requirements 

where mitigation can reduce those effects below the level of significance.86 

The masa example provides an excellent example of how the mitigation created by 

the closed-loop production system reduces the significance of the effects of Event 3272 on 

 84See DEIS, supra note 4, at 69-90.

.

85 See Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 772 (1983); Baltimore Gas & 

Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 96 (1983). 

86 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Counsel, 490 U.S. 322 (1989)
164

non-target users. There are three scenarios under which the dedicated grain supply system 

between the seed supplier, the contracted grower and the ethanol plant for Event 3272 could 

be breached, creating the possibility for Event 3272 to enter the yellow corn commodity 

market. First, adventitious pollination could result in Event 3272 growing in neighboring 

fields. Second, a contracted grower could inadvertently deliver Event 3272 corn directly to a 

masa production facility. Third, the contracted grower could inadvertently deliver Event

3272 to a local elevator that is an open-market supplier to a masa production facility. 

As discussed above, the probability of the first scenario is remote. First, less than 

10% of corn fields supporting ethanol plants (the geographic area in which Event 3272 will 

be grown) are in the vicinity of masa plants. The twelve border row requirement for harvest 

assures that 99.9% of the grown corn amylase will be accounted for in the Event 3272 

dedicated grain supply system. This level, even before the certain dilution with other yellowdent corn bound for the masa facility, is below the level which would impact masa 

production.

The likelihood of the second and third scenarios is effectively reduced by the series of 

supply-chain control points between the field and the masa facility. These control points 

include those in the masa industry and those in the closed-loop system for Event 3272 corn. 

The controls in the masa industry make it highly unlikely that Event 3272 corn would be 

diverted to a masa facility. Even if a diversion occurs, testing and dilution rates further 

minimize the risk. The controls in the closed-loop system build stewardship responsibilities 

for the farm, the transporters, and the ethanol plants that substantially reduce this risk even

more. Whatever risk there is even further reduced by the mechanisms, standards, and 

recordkeeping requirements in the modern grain system that promote product segregation 

and identity preservation. 

It is important to note that the context and intensity effects as analyzed in this hardlook analysis do not differ from those associated with other specialty corns in commerce 

today. Many of these specialty corn products are unsuitable for some generic corn uses. For 

example, waxy corn starch has a unique starch matrix of more than 98% amylopectin starch. 

It delivers a unique functionality that differs from normal yellow dent corn starch, which is a 

blend of 70% amylopectin and 30% amylose. Should waxy corn be introduced into a wet 

mill that produces starch products from standard yellow dent corn, the products will not meet 

commercial specifications. 

Based on the hard-look analysis of the context of introduction of Event 3272 as a 

specialty grain and the intensity of its impact, the effect is not significant. The Syngenta 

Stewardship Program, the sophisticated ability of the U.S. grain supply system to manage 

and distribute differentiated specialty corn grain, and the traceability record-keeping 

provisions of the Bioterrorism Act all support a determination that the deregulation of Event 

3272 will not significantly affect the human environment.

VI.

Conclusion
165

For the foregoing reasons, the deregulation of Event 3272 will not significantly affect 

the human environment and Syngenta’s petition should be granted based upon a finding of no 

significant impact.
166

Appendix H. FDA memo on Event 3272 corn 

consultation

FDA Home Page | CFSAN Home | Search/Subject Index | Q & A | 

CFSAN/Office of Food Additive Safety August 7, 2007 

Help 

Biotechnology Consultation 

Note to the File 

BNF No. 000095 

Date: August 7, 2007 

Subject: Biotechnology Notification File (BNF) 000095, corn transformation event 

3272. 

Keywords: Zea mays L., maize, corn, corn event 3272, AMY797E, alphaamylase, amylase, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, PMI, phosphomannose isomerase 

1. Introduction 

In a submission dated August 31, 2005, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. (Syngenta) provided 

to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a safety and nutritional assessment of 

genetically engineered AMY797E alpha-amylase corn designated as corn event 

3272. Syngenta provided additional information to the FDA on May 1, 2006, 

August 2, 2006, November 8, 2006, January 19, 2007, March 2, 2007, March 6, 

2007, March 7, 2007, May 31, 2007, July 11, 2007 and July 12, 2007. Syngenta 

concluded that food and feed derived from corn event 3272 are as safe and 

nutritious as food and feed derived from conventional corn varieties. 

2. Intended Effect 

Corn event 3272 was genetically engineered to contain a chimeric, thermostable, 

alpha-amylase gene derived from alpha-amylase genes from three hyperthermophilic 

microorganisms within the order Thermococcales. The resulting transformed corn is 

intended to be mixed with other corn for use in dry grind fuel ethanol production as 

a source of alpha-amylase, replacing the need for the addition of microbially-
167

produced amylase during processing. The enzyme catalyzes the hydrolysis of the 

alpha-1,4-glucosidic bonds of amylase and amylopectin polymers into dextrins, 

maltose, and glucose. The recombinant enzyme is stable and active at high 

temperatures of dry grind ethanol production. 

Syngenta states that, based on its safety assessment, corn event 3272 is as safe as 

other corn lines, and as such may be used as food, feed or in the production of food 

products or ingredients. However, Syngenta states that grain from corn event 3272 

is primarily targeted for the dry grind fuel ethanol production industry in the United 

States. 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/bnfm095.html 

3. Genetic Modifications and Characterization 

3.1 Transformation Plasmid and Parential Variety 

Syngenta constructed the plasmid vector pNOV7013. The plasmid contains two expression 

cassettes within its T-DNA region. The T-DNA region contains a single copy of the 

amy797E alpha-amylase expression cassette and a single copy of the phosphomannose 

isomerase (pmi) expression cassette as a selectable marker. The T-DNA region of 

pNOV7013 was incorporated into immature corn embryo cells from a proprietary corn line 

(NP2499/NP2500) using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. The T-DNA region of 

pNOV7013 contains the following genetic elements. 

Table 1. Genetic elements contained in the T-DNA region of the plasmid vector 

pNOV7013. 
168
169

Left border sequence from the nopaline Ti plasmid. 

Delineates the T-DNA region for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. 
170
171

Plasmid pNOV7013 contains several genes on its plasmid backbone necessary for 

maintenance and selection of the plasmid. These sequences are not intended for transfer into 

the plant genome. The plasmid backbone of pNOV7013 contains origins of replication that 

allow replication of the plasmid in both Agrobacterium tumefaciens and Escherichia coli. 

The plasmid contains the spec gene encoding the Tn7 adenylyltransferase conferring

resistance to erythromycin, streptomycin and spectinomycin. pNOV7013 also contains the 

virG gene, which is a gene involved in regulation of virulence in A. tumefaciens, and the 

repA gene, which is a gene responsible for plasmid replication in Gram-negative, plantassociated bacteria. 

3.2 Characterization, Stability and Inheritance of the Introduced DNA 

Syngenta performed polymerase chain reaction (PCR), restriction digests, and Southern blot 

analysis to support its conclusion that corn event 3272 contains one intact copy of its 

amy797E and pmi expression cassette. Syngenta determined the nucleotide sequence of the 

T-DNA region present in corn event 3272 to demonstrate the integrity of the insert. 
172

Syngenta reports that corn event 3272 contains no detectable genetic material from the 

pNOV7013 backbone, including the spec, virG, and repA genes. 

Syngenta examined the stability and inheritance pattern of the introduced traits through 

conventional breeding over five generations consisting of four rounds of backcrossing to 

conventional inbred lines. Syngenta reported no significant differences in the observed-toexpected segregation ratios for the amy797E gene over five generations, as demonstrated by 

the 

chi-square (χ2

) values. Syngenta reported that these segregation data indicate a singlelocus, Mendelian inheritance pattern for the insert in corn event 3272. 

4. Introduced Substances - AMY797E Alpha-Amylase and PMI Enzymes 

Syngenta provided information on the identity, function, and characterization of the genes as 

well the expression levels of the gene products. They also provided information on the 

potential allergenicity and toxicity of the expressed proteins. 

4.1 Identity, Function, and Characterization 

4.1.1 AMY797E Alpha-Amylase 

Syngenta compared the amino acid sequence of the AMY797E alpha-amylase protein to 

other alpha-amylases, stating that AMY797E shared a 93% homology to a microbially 

derived alpha-amylase BD5088 (Innovase LLC) produced through a similar recombination 

technique as AMY797E. The BD5088 alpha-amylase was the subject of a generally 

recognized as safe (GRAS) notice (GRN 126) for use in food. Syngenta also provided the 

complete amino acid sequence of AMY797E. Additionally, Syngenta provided information 

about the functional activity of AMY797E to demonstrate its functionality as an alphaamylase. 

4.1.2 PMI 

The pmi gene, introduced as a selectable marker into corn event 3272, encodes a 

phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) enzyme that catalyzes the inter-conversion of 

mannose-6phosphate and fructose-6-phosphate. The expression of the pmi gene in the 

plant allows the plant to survive and grow on media containing only mannose as the only 

or primary carbon source, which facilitates selection of transformed plants. 

Syngenta reports that PMI enzymes exist widely in nature among both prokaryotes and 

eukaryotes. Syngenta states that PMI enzymes have been found in plants such as tobacco, 

walnut, and soybean and other legumes, although Syngenta notes that sequence homology for 

the pmi gene introduced into event 3272 is highest for enteric Gram-negative bacteria (70-

100% homology). 

4.2 Expression Levels 

4.2.1 AMY797E Alpha-Amylase 
173

Syngenta reports that AMY797E alpha-amylase expression levels were measured by 

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in several tissues at various stages of 

development. Syngenta notes that expression of AMY797E is directed primarily to the kernel 

by the maize gamma-zein promoter, and as expected, the highest concentration of AMY797E 

alpha-amylase is in the kernel. Mean concentration measured in mature or senescent kernels 

ranged from 838 ± 268 μg/g fresh weight (fw) (1004 ± 322 μg/g dry weight (dw)) to 955 ± 

225 μg/g fw (1335 ± 358 μg/g dw). Mean concentration in younger "dough" stage (R4) 

kernels ranged from 874 ± 160 μg/g fw (1994 ± 228 μg/g dw) to 1627 ± 338 μg/g fw (3365 ± 

780 μg/g dw). Concentration of AMY797E alpha-amylase varied in whole plant samples, at 

various growth stages, from < 12 μg/g fw (< 37 μg/g dw) to 281 ± 108 μg/g fw (668 ± 248 

μg/g dw). 

4.2.2 PMI 

PMI protein concentrations were also measured in various tissues and developmental stages. 

PMI was detected in most tissues tested and concentrations were similar regardless of the 

developmental stage tested. The highest levels were detected in pollen, with concentrations 

ranging from 8.0 to 8.5 μg/g fw (17.0 - 18.2 μg/g dw). Mean concentrations of PMI in 

kernels over all growth stages ranged from < 0.4 μg/g fw (< 0.5 μg/g dw) to 0.8 ± 0.1 μg/g 

fw (1.8 ± 0.4 μg/g dw). Concentrations of PMI in whole plant samples from all 

developmental stages ranged from < 0.3 μg/g fw (< 0.6 μg/dw) to 1.5 ± 0.3 μg/g fw (3.6 ± 

0.9 μg/g dw). 

4.3. Assessment of Potential Allergenicity 

Syngenta states that the potential allergenicity of the AMY797E alpha-amylase and PMI 

proteins were assessed by searching for amino acid homology between these proteins and 

known allergen protein sequences. These searches were conducted using a database 

comprised of identified or putative allergen sequences from publicly available databases 

(GenPept, PIR, SWISS-PROT, FAARP and IUIS) and additional putative allergen sequences 

from the scientific literature. Syngenta also assessed the stability of the AMY797E and PMI 

proteins using in vitro digestibility assays. 

4.3.1 AMY797E Alpha-Amylase 

Syngenta reports that the donor organisms (Thermococcus/Pyrococcus) used to 

develop AMY797E alpha-amylase protein are not known to be allergenic. 

Syngenta reports that for AMY797E, there were no amino acid sequence identities of 

greater than 35% in segments of 80 amino acids with any entries in the database. Syngenta 

does note that there was a single segment of 8 contiguous amino acids in AMY797E that 

matched a known allergenic sequence derived from an insect. However, Syngenta notes 

that the allergenic epitopes are known for this allergen (American cockroach, Per a 3) and 

there is no overlap between these binding epitopes and the eight amino acid region of 

sequence identity with AMY797E alpha-amylase. Therefore, Syngenta maintains that this 

sequence identity is not biologically relevant and has no implication for the allergenic 
174

potential of the AMY797E alpha-amylase. 

Syngenta provides data on the in vitro digestibility of AMY797E. Syngenta reports that 

AMY797E was susceptible to proteolytic degradation in simulated gastric fluid (SGF) 

containing pepsin, indicating that AMY797E is degraded within 5 minutes. Syngenta states 

that AMY797E is not stable to digestion and is therefore unlikely to become allergenic. 

Syngenta notes that AMY797E is a thermostable protein. In addition, Syngenta reports 

that analysis of AMY797E as expressed in corn event 3272 does not reveal evidence of 

posttranslational glycosylation. 

4.3.2 PMI 

Syngenta reports that the donor organism (E. coli) used to develop the PMI protein is 

not known to be allergenic. 

Syngenta reports that for PMI, there were no amino acid sequence identities of greater than 

35% in segments of 80 amino acids with any entries in the database. Syngenta does note that 

there was a single segment of 8 contiguous amino acids in the PMI protein that matched a 

known allergen, α-parvalbumin from Rana species CH2001, an edible frog. Syngenta reports 

that further investigation of PMI using serum from one known α-parvalbumin-sensitive

individual demonstrated a lack of reactivity with PMI. Syngenta therefore concluded that the 

sequence identity between PMI and α-parvalbumin is not biologically relevant. 

Syngenta provides data on the in vitro digestibility of PMI. Syngenta reports that the PMI 

protein was found to be degraded when sampled immediately after time zero. Syngenta 

states that PMI is not stable to digestion and is therefore unlikely to become allergenic. 

Syngenta notes that the PMI protein is labile to heat. In addition, Syngenta reports that PMI 

is unlikely to be glycosylated, given that the PMI protein does not contain consensus amino 

acid sequences required for N-glycosylation and the protein is not targeted to a cellular 

glycosylation pathway. 

4.4 Assessment of Potential Toxicity 

4.4.1 AMY797E Alpha-Amylase 

Syngenta reported results from an acute oral toxicity study in mice where 1511 

milligrams/kilogram body weight (mg/kg bw) AMY797E protein, or a control, was given 

by gavage. Syngenta indicates that the AMY797E test substance was prepared from event3272 grain and was determined to be 42% AMY797E protein. Syngenta states that the 

animals were monitored for 14 days and were sacrificed. Syngenta reports that there were 

no effects of treatment on any observation, including body weight, food consumption, 

organ weight, or histopathology. 

Syngenta reports that the potential toxicity of AMY797E was also assessed by comparing 
175

its amino acid sequence against all publicly available protein sequences identified as toxins 

in the National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez Protein Database. Syngenta 

reports that no significant sequence homology to any known toxins was identified. 

4.4.2 PMI 

Syngenta reports results from an acute oral toxicity study where PMI protein was given to 

mice by gavage at a dose of 3030 mg/kg bw. Syngenta notes that the PMI protein used in 

this study was obtained by over-expressing the protein in E. coli. Syngenta states that the 

animals were monitored for 14 days and were sacrificed. Syngenta reports that there were no

effects of treatment on any observation, including body weight, food consumption, organ 

weight, or histopathology. 

Syngenta reports that the potential toxicity of PMI was also assessed comparing its amino 

acid sequence against all publicly available protein sequences identified as toxins in the 

National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez Protein Database. Syngenta reports 

that no significant sequence homology to any known toxins was identified. 

5. Food and Feed Uses of Corn 

Syngenta notes that corn grown in the U.S. is primarily the yellow dent type, a commodity 

crop used primarily to feed domestic animals, either as grain or forage. The remainder of the 

crop being exported or processed by wet or dry milling to yield human food products such as 

high fructose corn syrup, starch or oil, grits and flour. The by-products of wet and dry milling 

are commonly used in animal feed. 

6. Compositional Analysis 

Syngenta evaluated the composition of forage and grain from event 3272-derived corn 

hybrids relative to negative segregant (near-isogenic) control corn hybrids of similar 

genetic background. 

Compositional analyses were performed on forage and grain. Syngenta analyzed corn grown 

at 10 different locations over a two year period, with three replicate plots of each genotype1 

planted at each location in randomized complete blocks. Grain was harvested from 6 

locations 

in both years and forage was harvested from 6 locations in 2003 and 7 locations in 2004. 

Three of the locations used in 2003 were again used in 2004 for growing corn grain, and 

four of the locations used in 2003 were again used for growing corn forage in 2004. Two 

hybrid pairs 2 

were grown in 2003 and one hybrid pair was grown in 2004. The data were combined for 

statistical analysis across locations, hybrid pairs, and growing seasons. Compositional data 

were statistically analyzed using a mixed model analysis of variance with locations serving 

as blocks. Statistical significance was assigned at p < 0.05 indicating that the difference 

between the treatments was statistically different at the 5% customary level. Syngenta 
176

compared the compositional data with published literature values for each analyte to assess 

whether statistically significant differences in the composition of the event 3272-derived 

hybrids and the corresponding near-isogenic control maize were biologically meaningful. 

6.1 Forage Composition 

Syngenta determined the levels of the following analytes in forage from corn event 

3272derived and the near-isogenic control hybrids collected at the R4 development 

stage. The following groups of analytes were measured: 

z Proximates 

z Minerals 

A list of specific analytes contained in each group is shown in Table 2. Syngenta reported 

mean values for these analytes fell within published literature ranges.3,

4

Syngenta conducted 

a combined statistical analysis of forage data from all three field trials for analytes5

marked 

with 

an asterisk (*) in Table 2, and found statistically significant differences between the event 

3272derived hybrids and their near-isogenic control lines for protein, carbohydrate and acid 

detergent fiber (ADF). Protein levels were statistically significantly higher, and 

carbohydrates and ADF were significantly lower in event 3272-derived hybrids than their 

respective near-isogenic control lines. Syngenta concluded that these differences were not 

biologically meaningful. 

Table 2. Components measured in event 3272-derived forage and grain 
177

Syngenta determined the levels of the following analytes in grain from corn event 3272-

derived and the near-isogenic control hybrids collected at the R6 growth stage (maturity). 

The following groups of analytes were measured: 

z Proximates 

z Minerals 

z Amino Acids 

z Fatty Acids 

z Anti-nutrients 

z Secondary metabolites 

z Vitamins 

A list of specific components contained in each group is shown in Table 2. Syngenta 

reported mean values were within published literature ranges, with minor exceptions 

noted.6,

7

Syngenta conducted a combined statistical analysis of grain data from all field trials 

for all analytes listed in Table 2, excluding γ-tocopherol and β-cryptoxanthin8and the nine 

analytes below the limit 

of quantitation. Exclusion of these analytes did not, however, affect Syngenta's 

conclusions. Low levels of these nutrients and anti-nutrients are consistent with values 

reported in the published literature and variable levels of certain nutrients (e.g. selenium) 

found in soil throughout the U.S. 

Syngenta reported statistically significant differences in mean values between event 3272-
178

derived hybrids and controls for protein and manganese, which were higher in event 3272-

derived hybrids than near-isogenic control hybrids. Syngenta also reported statistically 

significant differences in the mean values of carbohydrates, total dietary fiber, neutral 

detergent fiber, vitamin B6, β-carotene, inositol, and ferulic acid, which were lower in event 

3272-derived 

hybrids. Event 3272-derived hybrids had significantly higher levels of almost all amino 

acids compared to the near-isogenic control lines, with the exception of arginine, cysteine, 

and lysine which were not different. Syngenta has compared all mean values to published 

literature ranges and concludes differences between event 3272-derived and near-isogenic 

control hybrids are not biologically meaningful. 

7. Wholesomeness Study 

Syngenta reports results from a 42-day broiler chicken feeding study comparing birds fed 

event3272 grain versus the near-isogenic control and commercially-available corn. Syngenta 

indicates that all of the diets derived from treatment and control diets supported rapid growth 

with low mortality rates and excellent feed conversion ratios.9Syngenta also reports no 

evidence of biologically-significant differences in growth or feed conversion in chickens fed 

event-3272 grain compared to near-isogenic control or commercially available corn. 

Furthermore, Syngenta notes the absence of any adverse nutritional or toxic effects in 

chickens fed these diets. 

8. Conclusions 

Syngenta has concluded that AMY797E alpha-amylase corn event 3272 is not materially 

different in composition, safety, or any other relevant parameter from corn now grown, 

marketed, and consumed. At this time, based on Syngenta's data and information, the 

agency 

considers Syngenta's consultation on AMY797E alpha-amylase corn event 3272 to be 

complete. 

Richard E. Bonnette 

(1)

The term genotype is used by Syngenta to refer only to the presence or absence of 

Event 3272. 

(2)

Syngenta defines hybrid pairs as the result of an initial cross-breeding of event 3272 and a 

non-transgenic line followed by self-crossing or cross-breeding of the resulting progeny one 

or more times and the selection of homozygous trait positive and negative segregants. 
179

(3)

Syngenta reported fat levels below the 0.1% limit of quantification in forage from both 

event 3272-derived hybrids and their respective near-isogenic control lines at a single field 

site. Excluding data from this site, reported mean values for fat were within published 

literature ranges. 

(4)

Values were within the ranges found in the International Life Sciences Institute Crop 

Composition Database (version 3.0, released April 10, 2006, available at: 

www.cropcomposition.org

(5)

Syngenta limited forage analytes in the combined statistical analysis to those suggested by 

the OECD (2002). Fat was excluded from the combined statistical analysis due to levels 

below the limit of detection. 

). Excluding phosphorous, means for all analytes also fell within 

values cited by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 

"Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Maize (Zea 

Mays): Key Food and Feed Nutrients, Anti-Nutrients and Secondary Plant Metabolites." 

(Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, No. 6, 2002). 

(6)

The following 9 grain analytes had one or more observations below the limit of quantitation 

of the assay: sodium, selenium, raffinose, phytic acid, furfural, tocopherols (α-, β- and γ-), 

and vitamin C. An observation represents the mean of 3 replicate plots per location, with 

grain from 15 plants pooled from each plot. 

(7)

Values were within the ranges found in the International Life Sciences Institute 

Crop Composition Database (version 3.0, released April 10, 2006, available at: 

www.cropcomposition.org

(8)

For several of the analytes, Syngenta reported that the treatment (genotype) effect differed 

by location. However, based on the statistical model used, the interpretation of the data was 

not affected. 

). Fatty acids mean values were within ranges cited by 

OECD (2002). 

(9)

Syngenta notes that the non-transgenic control grain appeared to contain 

low levels 

(approximately 1.6-2.6%) of event-3272 corn. 

Biotechnology | Products: Completed Consultations 

CFSAN Home | CFSAN Search/Subject Index | CFSAN Disclaimers & Privacy Policy | CFSAN Accessibility/Help

FDA Home Page | Search FDA Site | FDA A-Z Index | 

FDA/Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition

Hypertext updated by 

Contact FDA

jmf/ao/emw November 13, 2007 
180

Appendix I. Report on DDGS submitted by Syngenta

Impact of Event 3272 Corn on Distillers Grains

John M. Urbanchuk

Director, LECG LLC

December 4, 2007

Syngenta Biotechnology Inc. has developed a novel transgenic corn variety, designated as 

Event 3272 that contains a genetically inserted thermostable alpha-amylase enzyme. Event 

3272 is agronomically equivalent to No. 2 Yellow Corn and has been shown to be as safe for 

human and animal consumption as conventional yellow corn; its unique properties make it 

especially suited for use as a feedstock for ethanol produced by the dry grind process.

Dry Grind Ethanol Production

Ethanol is produced from corn and other grains using one of two production processes: wet 

milling and dry milling. The main difference between the two is the initial treatment of the 

grain. Most new ethanol facilities built in the U.S. in recent years have been dry grind plants. 

According to the Renewable Fuels Association dry mill facilities account for 82 percent of 

ethanol production and wet mills 18 percent.

In the typical dry grind process, the entire corn kernel is ground into a meal or flour and is 

processed without separating out the various component parts of the grain. Water is added to 

form a mash to which enzymes are added to convert the starch to dextrose, a simple sugar. 

Ammonia is added for pH control and as a nutrient for the yeast. The mash is processed in a 

high-temperature cooker to reduce bacteria levels ahead of fermentation. The mash is cooled 

and transferred to fermenters where yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol and 

carbon dioxide (CO2) begins.
181

After fermentation, the resulting mixture called “beer” is transferred to distillation columns 

where the ethanol is separated out. The ethanol is concentrated to 190 proof using 

conventional distillation and then is dehydrated to approximately 200 proof in a molecular 

sieve system. The anhydrous ethanol is then blended with a denaturant such as regular 

gasoline to render it non potable and thus not subject to beverage alcohol tax. It is then ready 

for shipment to gasoline terminals for blending with gasoline.

After the fermented mash is distilled to remove the alcohol, the remaining slurry contains 5 

to 10 percent dry matter called whole or spent stillage. Whole stillage is processed by 

various techniques to remove the large volume of water associated with the residual dry 

matter. The first step involves screening and pressing, or centrifuging to remove the solids 

composed of coarser grain particles. These solids, called Distillers’ Grains - DG, can be 

subsequently handled in several ways but are ultimately sold in various forms for animal 

feed. The distillers grains can be sold as a wet product (Wet Distillers’ Grains – WDG) or 

can be dried (Dried Distillers’ Grains – DDG). The liquid remaining after screening or 

centrifuging the whole stillage contains fine grain particles and yeast cells and is called thin

stillage. Thin stillage is generally evaporated to produce a syrup called solubles which may 

be added back to the distillers grains. The mixture is then dried to produce Dried Distillers 

Grains with Solubles (DDGS), a high quality, medium-protein livestock feed. 

Alpha-amylase is one of two enzymes (the other being glucoamylase) that convert the starch 

in corn to sugar which is then fermented and distilled into ethanol. Microbial produced 

alpha-amylase is already used commercially in the starch to sugar step of the dry grind and 

wet mill process of ethanol production. The Syngenta innovation prompts corn to produce its 

own heat-resistant alpha-amylase, thus eliminating the need for externally applied microbial 

alpha-amylase. 
182

Impact of Event 3272 on Distillers grains

While efficiencies from Event 3272 are gained throughout the ethanol production process, 

the greatest benefits are realized within the starch-to-sugar conversion phase. The most 

apparent of these benefits is the elimination of microbial alpha-amylase as a raw material 

input. Alpha-amylase is used to break down the starch component of the corn into short 

chain dextrins, or complex sugars. Glucoamylase is then added during saccharification to 

further break down dextrins into simple sugars that can be fermented into ethanol. Because 

the alpha-amylase enzyme is already present in the corn kernel of Event 3272, this input is 

eliminated from the process. 

The alpha-amylase enzyme produced by Event 3272 catalyzes the same reaction as other 

microbial alpha-amylases. The enzyme, whether exogenously introduced in microbial form 

or provided by the corn via Event 3272, only directly affects the conversion of starch to 

sugar, which eventually becomes ethanol. Use of Event 3272 corn is unlikely to have any 

adverse impact on the composition or quality of the coarse grain (distillers grains) or solubles 

left after distillation that, when added to distillers grains, become DDGS.

However, the use of Event 3272 corn will provide important efficiencies to the ethanol 

production process that may result in direct benefits to the distillers grains produced from 

Event 3272 corn. 

• The first of these is a reduction by half in sulfuric acid used to maintain pH levels. 

When conventional yellow corn is used in a dry grind plant, pH must be adjusted at 

several stages to create optimal conditions for chemical reactions to take place. With 

Event 3272 corn, pH is maintained at a constant level of approximately 4.8 

throughout the production process. This reduces the use of sulfuric acid by half. 

Sulfuric acid ultimately becomes a sulfur salt in the DDGS product. According to 

research conducted at the University of Minnesota the sulfur content of distillers 

grains can be both very high and highly variable. “If not managed properly, high S 

concentrations in the diet, coupled with S from drinking water, may negatively affect 
183

both animal performance and animal health”.87 The effect of reducing sulfuric acid 

use in dry grind ethanol production through the use of Event 3272 corn will enable 

feedlot operators to more effectively manage sulfur concentrations and avoid 

potential toxicity issues associated with conventional distillers grains.

• Event 3272 provides an additional benefit to the ethanol production process by 

increasing solids content in the starch-to-sugar phase. An increased solids/liquid ratio 

decreases water use which may also reduce the amount of drying required to 

evaporate the water in the stillage to produce a marketable distillers grains product. 

Reduced drying requirements may both improve consistency and quality of distillers 

grains. One of the most commonly cited problems with DDGS is scorching or 

burning that result in darkening of the distillers grains, creating an offensive odor, and 

a potential degradation of nutritional properties.88

 87 Grant Crawford. “Managing High Sulfur Concentrations in Beef Cattle Feedlot Rations”. University of 

Minnesota Beef Center. 2007. Available online at www.extension.umn.edu/beef

 The use of Event 3272 corn may 

enable ethanol producers to avoid these problems.

88 D.O. Connor. “The Impact of Changes in the Ethanol Production Process on the Nutritional Value of 

Distillers Grains”. (S&T)2 Consultants. 2007.
184

Appendix J. Glossary

A

Abiotic Stress Stress due to non-living, environmental factors such as cold, heat, 

drought, flooding, salinity, toxic substances, and ultraviolet light.

Agrobacterium 

tumefaciens

A bacterium that causes crown gall disease in some plants. The 

bacterium characteristically infects a wound and incorporates a piece 

of its own DNA into the host plant genome, causing the host cell to 

grow into a tumor-like structure. This DNA-transfer mechanism is 

commonly exploited in the genetic engineering of plants.

Agrobacterium 

Tumefaciensmediated 

Transformation

The process of DNA transfer from Agrobacterium tumefaciens to 

plants, which occurs naturally during crown gall disease and can be 

used as a method of transformation.

Allergen Any substance that causes an allergic reaction.

Alpha-amylase The major form of amylase found in humans and other mammals. 

Amylase is the name given to glycoside hydrolase enzymes that break 

down starch into glucose molecules.

Anthesis Time at which the corn sheds pollen.

Antibiotic 

Resistance Marker 

Gene

Genes (usually of bacterial origin) used as selection markers in 

transformation because their presence allows cell survival in the 

presence of normally toxic antibiotic agents.

Antinutritional or 

Antinutritive 

Compound

A compound in food or animal feed that has a negative impact on 

nutrition or the absorption of nutrients.

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Archael order 

Thermococcales

In taxonomy, the Thermococcales are an order of the Thermococci, in 

the Archaea domain. Archaea are a major division of 

microorganisms. Like bacteria, archaea are single-celled organisms 

lacking nuclei and are therefore prokaryotes, classified as belonging to 

kingdom Monera in the traditional five-kingdom taxonomy. Although 

there is still uncertainty in the approximate phylogeny of the groups, 

Archaea, Eukaryota and Bacteria are the fundamental classifications in 

what is called the three-domain system. Despite being prokaryotes, 

archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than to bacteria.

B

Barren plants Corn plants that do not develop an ear.

Benefical 

organisms

Any organism directly or indirectly advantageous to commodities, 

including biological control agents [ISPM No. 3, 2005].

Biotechnology Making specific modifications to the genome of an organism using 

techniques based on molecular biology, such as gene manipulation, 

gene transfer, DNA typing, and cloning of plants and animals.

Breeding The process of sexual reproduction and production of offspring. Plant 

breeding is an applied science for the development of plants suited for 
185

the use of humans, rather than their ability to survive in the wild.

BRS Biotechnology Regulatory Services (USDA–APHIS).

C

CFR Code of Federal Regulations (U.S.).

Conservation 

Tillage

A broad range of soil tillage systems that leave crop residue on the soil 

surface, substantially reducing the effects of soil erosion from wind 

and water.

Constitutive 

Expression Describing a gene that is expressed (i.e., “turned on”) at a relatively 

constant level in all cells of an organism without regard to cell 

environmental conditions.

Counterpart A plant variety (or varieties) that represents the closest appropriate

genotype to the transgenic plant in question and is a suitable

control taking into account the breeding history of the transgenic

plant. In some instances, it may be appropriate to use a transgenic

progenitor plant as a counterpart in addition to, or as a substitute

for, a non-transgenic counterpart. (NAPPO, RSPM No. 14, Transgenic

Materials).

D

DNA See Deoxyribonucleic Acid.

Deoxyribonucleic 

Acid

A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information of a cell. The 

structure of DNA is two long chains, consisting of chemical building 

blocks called ‘nucleotides,’ twisted into a double helix. The order of 

nucleotides determines hereditary characteristics.

Diploid The status of having two complete sets of chromosomes, most 

commonly one set of paternal origin and the other of maternal origin. 

Somatic tissues of higher plants and animals are ordinarily diploid in 

chromosome constitution, in contrast with the haploid gametes (FAO).

Donor An organism that provides a gene or gene fragment used in the genetic 

transformation of another organism, called the “recipient.”

Dry-grind ethanol 

process

In dry milling, the entire corn kernel or other starchy grain is first 

ground into flour, which is referred to in the industry as "meal" and 

processed without separating out the various component parts of the 

grain. In contrast, wet-milling involves soaking or steeping the grain 

in water and dilute sulfurous acid for 24 to 48 hours. (RFA website 

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/made/)

E

Early root lodging Percent of plants per plot leaning greater than 30 degrees from vertical 

at the root prior to anthesis.

ELISA (enzymelinked 

immunosorbent 

serologic assay)

A sensitive assay for detecting a specific protein that uses antibodies to 

bind to the protein.

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Event See Transformation Event.
186

Expression The means by which a gene’s information stored in DNA (or RNA in 

some viruses) is turned into biochemical information such as RNA or 

protein.

F

F1 Hybrid Abbreviation for filial generation 1. The initial hybrid generation 

resulting from a cross between two parents (FAO).

FDA Food and Drug Administration.

FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Flanking Region The DNA sequences extending on either side of a specific sequence.

FPPA Federal Plant Pest Act.

G

GE See Genetically Engineered.

Gene The basic unit of heredity transmitted from generation to generation 

during sexual or asexual reproduction; an ordered sequence of 

nucleotide bases, comprising of a segment of DNA. A gene contains 

the sequence of DNA that encodes an individual RNA or protein.

Gene Expression The process by which a gene produces mRNA and protein and 

ultimately exerts its effect on the phenotype of an organism.

Gene Flow The spread of genes from one population to another by the movement 

of individuals, gametes, seeds, or spores.

Gene 

Introgression

See Introgression.

Genetic 

Engineering

Genetic engineering refers to the process in which one or more genes 

and other genetic elements from one or more organism(s) are inserted 

into the genetic material of a second organism using recombinant DNA 

techniques.

Genetically 

Engineered (GE)

Modified in genotype and, hence, phenotype using recombinant DNA 

techniques.

GE Organism Genetically engineered organisms. (See Genetically Engineered.)

GE Plant Genetically engineered plant. (See Genetically Engineered.)

Genetic Marker A gene that is a reliable indicator that a particular organism possesses a 

specific trait of interest. Markers may be used to select certain 

individual organisms, e.g., cells that have inherited resistance to an 

antibiotic will be the only ones in a population that survive an 

antibiotic treatment.

Genetic 

Transformation

See Transformation.

Genome All of the hereditary material in a cell including DNA present in the 

cell nucleus, as well as in other locations such as plant chloroplasts and 

mitochondria.

Genotype The total genetic makeup that an individual receives from its parents.

Germination The initial stages in the growth of a seed to form a seedling (FAO).

GRAS Generally recognized as safe.
187

H

Herbicide 

Resistance or 

Tolerance

The ability of a plant to remain relatively unaffected by the application 

of what would otherwise be a highly damaging dose of an herbicide.

HGT Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal Gene 

Transfer

The transfer of genetic material from one organism (the donor) to 

another organism (the recipient) that is not sexually compatible with 

the donor.

Hybrid The offspring of two genetically dissimilar organisms.

Hyperthermophilic organism that thrives in extremely hot environments 

(Hyperthermophile)

I

Industrial Plant A plant genetically engineered with a gene whose effect is primarily of 

industrial use, as opposed to an agricultural or nutritional purpose.

Inserted Gene A piece of DNA that has been inserted into an organism using 

recombinant DNA technology.

Introgression The introduction of genes from one species into the gene pool of 

another via sexual crossing. The process begins with hybridization 

between the two species, followed by repeated backcrossing to one of 

the parent species.

K

Kernel dough About 24 to 28 days after silking, the kernel's milky inner fluid is 

changing to a 'doughy' consistency as starch accumulation continues in 

the endosperm. The shelled cob is now light red or pink. By dough 

stage, four embryonic leaves have formed and about half of the mature 

kernel dry weight is now in place. Kernel abortion is much less likely 

once kernels have reached early dough stage, but severe stress can 

continue to affect eventual yield by reducing kernel weight. Kernel 

moisture content is approximately 70 percent. 

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/CL/CL-10.html

Kernel maturity About 55 to 65 days after silking, kernel dry weight usually reaches its 

maximum and kernels are said to be physiologically mature and safe 

from frost. Physiological maturity occurs shortly after the kernel milk 

line disappears and just before the kernel black layer forms at the tip of 

the kernels. Severe stress after physiological maturity has little effect 

on grain yield, unless the integrity of the stalk or ear is compromised 

(e.g., ECB damage or stalk rots). Kernel moisture content at 

physiological maturity averages 30 percent, but can vary from 25 to 40 

percent grain moisture.

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/CL/CL-10.html

L

Late root lodging Percent of plants per plot leaning greater than 30 degrees from vertical 

at the root after anthesis. Used as a measure of abiotic stress tolerance.

Late season Rating of late-season integrity of the plant above the ear
188

intactness

M

Marker Gene A gene of known function or known location that is inherited in 

Mendelian fashion and facilitates the study of inheritance of a nearby 

gene.

Microorganism An organism that is microscopic (too small to be seen by the human 

eye). 

Monocot A flowering plant with only one embryonic seed leaf. Examples 

include grasses, irises, lilies, and onions. (See Dicot.)

Monoecious A plant species that has separate male and female flowers on the same 

plant (e.g. maize) (FAO)

MOU Memorandum of Understanding. 

N

NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and subsequent 

amentments.

NOI Notice of Intent.

Non-target 

organisms

An organism which is affected by a treatment (e.g. pesticide 

application) for which it was not the intended recipient (FAO).

Northern corn leaf 

blight

Corn disease caused by the fungus Exserohilum turcicum

Notification An administratively-streamlined alternative to a permit for the 

introduction of a regulated GE plant. The GE plant must meet specified 

eligibility criteria, and the introduction must meet certain pre-defined 

performance standards.

O

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Outcrossing The tendency of a plant species to produce offspring that result from 

the mating of two different individual plants. (See Self-pollinated.)

Overwintering Time at which plants experience ‘winter conditions’ where growth of 

vegetative tissues and reproductive structures becomes minimal or 

ceases completely. (wiki)

P

Percent snapped 

plants

Percent of plants per plot broken prior to anthesis due to adverse 

environmental conditions, such as high wind speeds. Used as a 

measure of abiotic stress tolerance.

Permits An application to BRS for the introduction of GE organisms that pose 

a plant pest risk, including plants, insects, or microbes.

Persistence Ability of an organism to remain in a particular setting for a period of 

time after it is introduced (FAO)

Phenotype The appearance or other characteristics of an organism, resulting from 

the interaction of its genetic constitution with the environment.

Phosphomannose 

isomerase

Phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), an enzyme not present in many

plants, catalyzes the reversible interconversion of mannose 6-

phosphate and fructose 6-phosphate. Plant cells lacking this enzyme 
189

are incapable of surviving on synthetic medium containing mannose.

Phytosanitary Plant health, including quarantine (FAO)

Plant Pest Any living stage (including active and dormant forms) of insects, 

mites, nematodes, slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, 

bacteria, fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts thereof; 

viruses; or any organisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing; 

or any infectious agents or substances, which can directly or indirectly 

injure or cause disease or damage in or to any plants or parts thereof, 

or any processed, manufactured, or other products of plants. (7 CFR 

340.1)

Plasmid An circular self-replicating non-chromosomal DNA molecule found in 

many bacteria, capable of transfer between bacterial cells of the same 

species, and occasionally of different species. Antibiotic resistance 

genes are frequently located on plasmids. Plasmids are particularly 

important as vectors for genetic engineering (FAO)

PPA Plant Protection Act.

PPQ Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA, APHIS).

Proline An amino acid. Some plant cells accumulate proline as an 

osmoprotectant.

Promoter A region of DNA located upstream of a gene that controls to what 

degree, where, and/or when a gene is expressed.

Push Test Scores The number of plants out of 10 plants tested that break at the stalk or 

have root failure after pushing to 45 degrees from vertical.

R

Recombinant DNA 

Technology The manipulation of DNA in which DNA, including DNA from 

different organisms, is cut apart and recombined using enzymes.

Recombination The physical exchange of genetic material between two genetic 

sequences that produces new combinations of genetic information. 

(See Homologous recombination and Non-homologous 

recombination.)

Regulated Article Subject to APHIS regulation under 7 CFR part 340.

Regulatory 

sequence

A DNA sequence involved in regulating the expression of a gene, e.g. 

a promoter or operator region (in the DNA molecule) (FAO)

Ribonucleic Acid 

(RNA)

A nucleic acid composed of a long, often single-stranded chain of 

chemical building blocks called ‘nucleotides.’ RNA has multiple 

functions in the process of translating information stored in genes 

(DNA) into proteins.

Ribonucleic Acid See RNA.

Rotation In crop production, the cycle of crops grown in successive years in the 

same field. Rotations are instituted to limit the spread and 

accumulation of diseases (especially soil-borne diseases) and pests and 

to manage plant nutrients.

S
190

Self-pollinated The tendency of a plant species to produce offspring that result from a 

flower pollinating itself. (See Outcrossing.)

Senescence A late stage in the development of multicellular organisms, during 

which irreversible loss of function and degradation of biological 

components occur. The physiological ageing process in which cells 

and tissues deteriorate and finally die (FAO).

Southern corn leaf 

blight

Corn disease caused by the fungus Bipolaris maydis

Stratification Chilling or warming seeds, for a period of time, to improve 

germination.

Sympatric 

populations Species undergoing sympatric speciation are not geographically 

isolated by, for example, a mountain or a river. The diverging 

populations generally share the same territory. (wiki)

Synergy The interaction of two or more factors so that their combined effect is 

greater than the sum of their individual effects.

T

TES Threatened and Endangered Species.

Tetraploid An organism, or a tissue whose cells contain four haploid sets of 

chromosomes (FAO)

Thermostable A molecule which retains its biological activity at some specified 

higher temperature (FAO)

Trait A characteristic of an organism that manifests itself in the phenotype. 

Traits may be the result of a single gene or may be polygenic, resulting

from the simultaneous expression of more than one gene.

Transformant A cell or organism that has been genetically altered through the 

integration of a transgene(s). A “primary” transformant is the first 

generation following the transformation event.

Transformation The uptake and integration of DNA in a cell’s genome, in which the 

introduced DNA is intended to change the phenotype of the recipient 

organism in a predictable manner.

Transformation 

Event

A single successful integration of a gene or gene fragment into a cell or 

a successful deletion of a gene or gene fragment from a cell.

Transgene A foreign gene that is inserted into the genome of a cell via 

recombinant DNA techniques.

Transgenic 

Organism

An organism whose genome has been modified via the stable 

incorporation of a piece of foreign DNA (a transgene).

U

V

Vector The agent, such as a plasmid, used by researchers to carry new genes 

into cells.

Vigor A measure of plant growth, health and robustness during the vegetative 

growth stage
191

Volunteer Plants resulting from crop seed that escapes harvest and remains in the 

field until subsequent seasons, where it germinates along with the 

succeeding crop.

W

Weediness The ability of a plant to colonize a disturbed habitat and compete with 

cultivated species.

Whorl Vegetative stage of the corn plant