Proposed Rule: Petition for a Determination of Nonregulated Status and Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment: Early and Near-Continuous Blooming European Plum (Prunus domestica) Lines (34 plum and 157 plum) Regulations.gov Document ID: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2026-0265-0001" target="_self"><ins>APHIS-2026-0265-0001</ins></a> Comment Period: August 14, 2026 to October 13, 2026 Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
View the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/user-notice" target="_self"><ins>terms of participation</ins></a> and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice" target="_self"><ins>privacy notice</ins></a> for Regulations.gov. All comments made on <a href="http://regulations.gov" target="_self"><ins>regulations.gov</ins></a> action centers will be public comments, so we encourage action-takers not to include personally identifiable information in their messages.
<h3>THE USDA WANTS TO FAST-TRACK GMO PLUM TREES — DEMAND REAL SCIENCE FIRST!</h3>
Deregulation Is Easy. Reversing Gene Flow Isn't.
The USDA is considering full deregulation of two genetically engineered (GE) European plum trees (Prunus domestica lines 34 and 157) developed by the agency’s own Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
These are not simply new varieties created through conventional breeding. Scientists genetically engineered the trees with a poplar tree gene to alter fundamental developmental and reproductive traits—including juvenility and flowering behavior.
Now, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is considering allowing these genetically engineered trees to be grown and propagated without the federal oversight that applies to regulated genetically engineered organisms.
And once living, reproducing GE trees are released into the environment, there is no recall button.
USDA’s own researchers developed the trees, which makes rigorous independent scrutiny especially important. Before USDA makes an irreversible decision, it should require rigorous, independent evidence demonstrating that these trees will not create unintended consequences for agriculture, ecosystems, pollinators, neighboring orchards, or consumers. 
We cannot let regulators rubber-stamp a novel genetic alteration without addressing critical gaps in environmental and health safety.
<h3>The Science Leaves Critical Questions Unanswered</h3>
APHIS's preliminary assessment may conclude that these GE plum trees are unlikely to pose a plant-pest risk, but “unlikely to be a plant pest” is not the same thing as demonstrating that a GE perennial tree is environmentally or biologically safe.
Critical questions remain:
🌸 What happens when the engineered genes spread? Plum trees reproduce through pollen and seed. Altering flowering behavior could change when—and potentially how often—these trees overlap reproductively with compatible cultivated or wild relatives. USDA should thoroughly evaluate the potential for gene flow and what it could mean for conventional and organic growers before deregulation makes that spread far more difficult to control.
🐝 What happens to pollinators and ecosystems? Flowering time is an ecological trait. Changing it can change interactions with bees and other pollinators as well as insects, pathogens and neighboring plants. Short-term observations cannot tell us everything that may happen after genetically engineered perennial trees remain in landscapes for decades.
🧬 What else changed when the genome was altered? Genetic engineering can produce intended changes—and unintended ones. Altering genes involved in plant development could potentially affect other biological or metabolic processes. It could even cause the plant to produce unanticipated toxins. USDA should require comprehensive molecular and compositional analyses capable of detecting unintended changes rather than simply assuming that the intended trait is the only meaningful difference.
🍑 What about the fruit people may eventually eat? If fruit from these trees—or descendants carrying the engineered traits—could enter the food supply, potential changes in composition, potential toxins or allergens, nutrients, antinutrients or naturally occurring plant compounds deserve appropriate investigation. Absence of evidence of harm is not evidence that the relevant questions have been adequately studied.
🌳 Where are the long-term, multi-generational data? A plum tree isn't an annual crop that disappears after harvest. It is a long-lived, reproducing organism that can persist for decades. Yet the consequences of releasing engineered perennial trees may not become apparent during limited field trials. USDA should demand evidence proportionate to the permanence of the decision.
<h3>Deregulation Is Easy. Reversing Gene Flow Isn't.</h3>
Once genetically engineered trees are widely planted, pollen moves, seeds disperse and trees reproduce. If an unexpected ecological or agricultural problem emerges years later, USDA cannot simply put the genes back in the laboratory.
That is precisely why the government should resolve important scientific uncertainties before deregulation—not after widespread release.
And because these GE plum trees were developed by USDA's own Agricultural Research Service, the public deserves especially rigorous and transparent review before another branch of USDA decides whether to remove federal oversight.
<h3>Tell USDA: Don't Rubber-Stamp This Genetic Experiment</h3>
Demand that the USDA reject deregulation of GE plum lines 34 and 157 until critical gaps in the scientific record have been addressed through rigorous, transparent and appropriately long-term testing.
Once these engineered genes are released into the environment, we may not get a second chance to get this right. TAKE ACTION TODAY. Submit a comment to the USDA. Use the pre-written comment, and if you have a minute, edit the comment text to make it your own.

Tell USDA: Don’t Unleash Genetically Engineered Plum Trees Without Real Safety Testing

Petition for a Determination of Nonregulated Status and Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment: Early and Near-Continuous Blooming European Plum (Prunus domestica) Lines (34 plum and 157 plum)

I oppose deregulation of genetically engineered plum lines 34 and 157 until critical gaps in the science have been addressed. These trees were engineered to alter important developmental and flowering traits. Yet questions remain about unintended effects, gene flow, pollinators, ecosystems and potential changes in the fruit. Once genetically engineered trees reproduce and spread their genes, there is no recall button. USDA should require rigorous, independent, long-term testing before removing federal oversight.

Action REG Federal APHIS-2026-0265-0001 GMO European Plums

GMO/Toxin Free USA

I urge APHIS to deny the petition for deregulation of GE plum lines 34 and 157 under Docket No. APHIS-2026-0265. The petition fails to adequately address the long-term ecological risks of near-continuous blooming on native pollinators, gene flow to non-GE stone fruits, and potential metabolic alterations in the fruit. USDA must prioritize precautionary science and require long-term environmental and health impact assessments before releasing genetically engineered tree crops into our food system.

No deregulation of GE plum lines 34 and 157

USDA must not deregulate genetically engineered plum

Please do not deregulate GE plum lines 34 and 157 without comprehensive, independent safety testing. Determining that these trees are unlikely to pose a plant-pest risk does not demonstrate that they are environmentally or biologically safe. USDA should investigate unintended genomic and metabolic changes, altered fruit composition, impacts on pollinators and ecosystems, and potential gene flow. With a long-lived, reproducing genetically engineered tree, USDA should resolve these questions before deregulation—not afterward.

Reject deregulation petition for GE plum lines 34 and 157

I urge USDA APHIS to reject deregulation of genetically engineered plum lines 34 and 157. These are living, reproducing trees capable of spreading engineered traits through pollen and seed. Once those genes move into compatible cultivated or wild relatives, the consequences may be impossible to reverse. Before removing federal oversight, USDA should require rigorous, independent, long-term research addressing gene flow, unintended genetic changes, pollinator impacts and broader ecological effects. Deregulation is easy. Reversing gene flow isn't.