American Alliance for Biomanufacturing (AAB)
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Modified Organisms Subject to the Plant Protection Act
USDA-2026-0133-0001RFI
Comments
2,478
Last activity Jun 30, 2026
Deadline
Closed on Jul 1, 2026
Closed Jul 1, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
+14%
-49% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Modified Organisms Subject to the Plant Protection Act
- Posted
- May 15, 2026
- Comment period
- May 15, 2026 – Jul 1, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-09833
- CFR
- 7 CFR Parts 330 and 340
- Topics
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Stance breakdown
+14%
Net support
Support1,402Oppose1,048Other28
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -49% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Academic
7
Business
16
Individual
2,159
Trade association
12
Advocacy
19
Other
265
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted May 15, 2026Deadline Jul 1, 2026
May 11May 25Jun 8Jun 22Jun 29
Support1,402Oppose1,048Other27
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
63%
36%
1%
Other
0%
100%
0%
Advocacy
74%
21%
5%
Business
100%
0%
0%
Trade association
67%
8%
25%
Academic
100%
0%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Gmo safety and health1,333
Herbicide drift impacts1,295
Public notice and transparency1,081
Trait-based regulatory framework290
Post-approval monitoring270
Secure rule reinstatement15
Agrobacterium research regulation11
Liability and insurance11
Product-over-process regulation5
Cumulative environmental impact4
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Trait-based regulatory framework | Secure rule reinstatement | Gmo safety and health | Agrobacterium research regulation | Product-over-process regulation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
American Alliance for Biomanufacturing (AAB) AdvocacySupport The American Alliance for Biomanufacturing (AAB), a coalition of biomanufacturing industry leaders, supports the USDA's | · | · | · | · | |
American Seed Trade Association Trade associationSupport The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) supports the USDA's efforts to modernize the regulatory framework for genetic | · | · | · | · | |
American Society of Plant Biologists; ASM; Weed Science Society of America AdvocacyOppose The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), the American Society of Microbiology (ASM), and the Weed Science Societ | · | · | · | · | |
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division BusinessSupport Battelle Memorial Institute, which operates the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, argues that the current regulator | · | · | · | · | |
Bayer Crop Science BusinessSupport Bayer Crop Science supports the USDA's efforts to evaluate risk-based deregulation of genetically engineered (GE) organi | · | · | · | · | |
BPIA AdvocacySupport The Biological Products Industry Alliance (BPIA), representing over 180 member companies, supports the USDA's request fo | · | · | |||
Center for Food Safety AdvocacySupport The Center for Food Safety (CFS) argues that APHIS should move away from "genetic materiality" as a basis for regulation | · | · | · | · | |
CoverCress Inc BusinessSupport CoverCress Inc., an agricultural technology company, supports the USDA's evaluation of the regulatory framework for modi | · | · | · | · | |
Enzyme Technical Association Trade associationSupport The Enzyme Technical Association (ETA), a trade association representing enzyme manufacturers and marketers, supports th | · | · | · | · | · |
GMO/Toxin Free USA AdvocacyOppose GMO/Toxin Free USA, a public interest nonprofit, opposes shifting the regulation of genetically engineered (GE) organism | · | · | · | ||
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation AdvocacySupport The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) argues that the existing regulatory regime for genetically e | · | · | · | · | |
InnerPlant, Inc. BusinessSupport InnerPlant, Inc., an agricultural biotechnology startup, supports a science-based, risk-proportionate regulatory framewo | · | · | · | ||
International Alliance for Phytobiomes Research AdvocacySupport The International Alliance for Phytobiomes Research, a non-profit consortium, argues that there are no inherent material | · | · | · | ||
Microbial Biotechnology Policy Committee AdvocacySupport The Microbial Biotechnology Policy Committee (MBPC), a task force of companies developing microbial products, supports A | · | · | · | · | |
National Grain and Feed Association Trade associationSupport The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) supports the USDA's role in regulating modified organisms under the Plant | · | · | · | · | · |
Pluton Biosciences, Inc. BusinessSupport Pluton Biosciences, Inc., an agricultural biotechnology company, supports the development of a more rational, risk-propo | · | · | · | ||
Precision Fermentation Alliance AdvocacySupport The Precision Fermentation Alliance (PFA) supports the USDA's effort to modernize the regulatory framework for modified | · | · | · | · | |
Simplot Plant Sciences BusinessSupport The Simplot Company, an agribusiness, supports a shift toward a risk-based, product-focused regulatory framework for mod | · | · | · | · | |
Society for In Vitro Biology AdvocacySupport The Society for Society In Vitro Biology (SIVB) argues that the USDA should discontinue the distinction between conventi | · | · | |||
The Agriculture Biotechnology Alliance AdvocacySupport The Agriculture Biotechnology Alliance (ABA), representing producers and biotechnology developers, supports the USDA's i | · | · | · | ||
The Breakthrough Institute AdvocacySupport The Breakthrough Institute supports streamlining the regulation of agricultural biotechnology by moving toward a risk-pr | · | · | · | ||
The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) Trade associationSupport The International Food Additives Council (IFAC), a trade association representing manufacturers of food ingredients, sup | · | · | · |
American Seed Trade Association
Trade associationSupport
Product-over-process regulation
American Society of Plant Biologists; ASM; Weed Science Society of America
AdvocacyOppose
Agrobacterium research regulation
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division
BusinessSupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Bayer Crop Science
BusinessSupport
Secure rule reinstatement
BPIA
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Secure rule reinstatement
Product-over-process regulation
Center for Food Safety
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
CoverCress Inc
BusinessSupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Enzyme Technical Association
Trade associationSupport
GMO/Toxin Free USA
AdvocacyOppose
Secure rule reinstatement
Gmo safety and health
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
InnerPlant, Inc.
BusinessSupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Secure rule reinstatement
International Alliance for Phytobiomes Research
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Gmo safety and health
Microbial Biotechnology Policy Committee
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
National Grain and Feed Association
Trade associationSupport
Pluton Biosciences, Inc.
BusinessSupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Gmo safety and health
Precision Fermentation Alliance
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Simplot Plant Sciences
BusinessSupport
Agrobacterium research regulation
Society for In Vitro Biology
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Secure rule reinstatement
Agrobacterium research regulation
The Agriculture Biotechnology Alliance
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Product-over-process regulation
The Breakthrough Institute
AdvocacySupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Secure rule reinstatement
The International Food Additives Council (IFAC)
Trade associationSupport
Trait-based regulatory framework
Gmo safety and health
Form letters
Campaigns
Organized form-letter drives, separated from organic one-off comments.
43%of comments arrived through a form-letter campaign — 1,056 of 2,477 comments. 1,415 are organic, and 6 are still being processed for campaign detection.
Campaign1,056Organic1,415Not yet determined6
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jun 30, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividual
The commenter argues that the USDA's current regulatory framework for genetically engineered crops is insufficient because it focuses too narrowly on plant pest risks rather than the broader impacts of herbicide use and chemical drift. They call for a more comprehensive regulatory approach that evaluates environmental, economic, and public health impacts before allowing organisms to proceed through simplified review pathways.
Read comment → - Jun 30, 2026Larry HansonOpposeIndividual
The commenter argues that the USDA's current regulatory framework for genetically engineered crops is insufficient because it fails to account for the combined impacts of GMOs and herbicides on neighboring farms and the environment. They advocate for a more comprehensive review process that evaluates ecological, economic, and public health impacts rather than focusing solely on plant pest risks.
Read comment → - Jun 30, 2026William JohnsonSupportIndividual
The commenter argues that the USDA's current regulatory framework for genetically engineered organisms is outdated and fails to account for the broader environmental and public health impacts of modern biotechnology. They advocate for updated regulations that consider the pesticide systems associated with GMOs, the development of resistant pests, and the complexities of emerging technologies like gene editing.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026THOMAS LOWEROpposeIndividual
The commenter argues that the USDA's current regulatory framework for GMOs is too narrow and fails to account for the broader environmental impacts of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant cropping systems. They advocate for a precautionary, science-based approach that evaluates the cumulative effects of these organisms and their intended agricultural uses.
Read comment →