POLICY • NEWS • MARKETS
AG POLICY & MARKETS DAILY
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026 | SPECIAL REPORT & ANALYSIS
POLICY ANALYSIS | CORN & THE BIOECONOMY
Corn Growers Push OMB to Put the Bioeconomy on the Statistical Map
NCGA says missing NAICS codes obscure corn’s next major demand engine
Analysis · August 13, 2026
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) is pressing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reverse course on a seemingly arcane statistical decision that could have outsized consequences for agriculture: whether the federal government should formally recognize biobased products and biomanufacturing as distinct industries.
NCGA filed comments (link) Aug. 12 urging OMB to reconsider a recommendation from its Economic Classification Policy Committee, or ECPC, that would make no bioeconomy-related industry changes in the 2027 revision of the North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS. NCGA argues existing classifications scatter biomanufacturing across conventional chemical, plastics, fuel and other manufacturing codes, making it difficult to measure investment, employment, output and — critically for farmers — the amount of agricultural feedstocks flowing into these new markets.
The issue sounds bureaucratic, but NCGA’s argument is straightforward: An industry that cannot be separately measured is harder for policymakers, investors and businesses to evaluate.
Current codes, NCGA said, do not adequately distinguish economic activity that converts corn and other agricultural feedstocks into renewable chemicals, materials, plastics, fuels, textiles and other products. Those businesses can therefore disappear statistically inside industries dominated by petroleum-based manufacturing.
That matters increasingly as corn growers search for the next large demand engine beyond livestock feed, traditional ethanol and exports.
OMB Asked the Question — Then Recommended No Change
There is an important wrinkle: The federal government itself spent several years examining exactly the measurement problem NCGA is raising.
When OMB began the 2027 NAICS revision process in December 2024, it specifically asked for ideas to improve measurement of emerging and innovative industries, including the bioeconomy. The ECPC eventually received 60 submissions, with six specifically seeking revisions involving the bioeconomy and biobased products.
But in its July 13 proposed 2027 revisions, the committee recommended no bioeconomy industry updates. The ECPC noted that President Donald Trump rescinded Executive Order 14081 — the Biden-era order that had directed federal agencies to improve measurement of biotechnology and biomanufacturing — in March 2025. It nevertheless said it evaluated the bioeconomy proposals under the same statistical principles applied to all proposed NAICS changes.
NCGA is effectively asking OMB, which has the final decision, to overrule that recommendation.
And the growers have another argument that may be more durable than the rescinded executive order.
Figure 1. Key dates in the bioeconomy classification fight, from the 2018 Farm Bill mandate to the Jan. 1, 2027, NAICS effective date. Sources: NCGA, OMB, USDA.
Congress Already Told USDA and Commerce to Develop Codes
Federal law contains unusually direct language on this subject. Under 7 U.S.C. §8102, as amended by the 2018 Farm Bill, the Agriculture and Commerce secretaries “shall jointly develop” NAICS codes for renewable chemical manufacturers and biobased products manufacturers.
NCGA explicitly cites that congressional mandate in its filing, arguing that the 2027 revision gives OMB an opportunity to finally translate it into practical statistical classifications.
That does not necessarily mean OMB must accept the exact classifications sought by NCGA. NAICS remains governed by statistical criteria, including whether establishments use sufficiently distinct production processes, whether an industry is large enough to publish meaningful data and whether a change would disrupt historical data series.
But it does strengthen NCGA’s case that the issue is not simply an industry request created by the previous administration’s biotechnology initiative. The statutory directive survived the change in administrations and the repeal of the executive order.
The Government’s Own Experts Saw a Measurement Gap
Perhaps the strongest support for NCGA’s argument comes from an earlier federal interagency study. A USDA-led technical working group involving multiple federal agencies concluded in 2023 that current classifications make the bioeconomy difficult to measure and recommended targeted additions to NAICS and the complementary North American Product Classification System, or NAPCS.
Rather than creating one giant “bioeconomy” sector, the group favored mostly six-digit industry breakouts that could preserve existing statistical series while identifying genuinely different production processes. Among its recommendations were separate treatment for basic organic chemicals produced with biobased feedstocks and several renewable-fuel processes, including renewable jet fuel.
That distinction is important. A broad bioeconomy category would conflict with one of NAICS’ fundamental principles: establishments are classified primarily according to how they produce something, not simply according to whether the final product is renewable or environmentally preferable. OMB specifically says NAICS is production-oriented.
For example, producing a plastic bottle from bioplastic may look essentially identical at the bottle factory to producing one from conventional plastic. The more statistically meaningful distinction may occur upstream, where a manufacturer makes the bioplastic resin using fermentation or other biological feedstocks rather than petroleum.
The federal working group itself recognized that distinction and recommended concentrating new codes where manufacturing processes truly differ.
That suggests the most plausible compromise is not a sweeping new “bioeconomy” NAICS sector, but narrowly targeted six-digit classifications for specific biomanufacturing processes.
The Corn Numbers Explain Why Growers Care
NCGA’s filing provides an eye-catching illustration of what is potentially at stake. The organization estimates that if corn-based materials captured the petroleum now used in 10% of the global plastics market, it could generate 6.6 billion bushels of corn demand.
NCGA made the same estimate in its July strategy for developing new corn markets. Its broader plan also identified maritime fuels and sustainable aviation fuel as large potential demand outlets.
The scale of the plastics figure deserves perspective. USDA’s Aug. 12 WASDE forecast the 2026 U.S. corn crop at roughly 16.0 billion bushels. That means NCGA’s 6.6-billion-bushel scenario is equivalent to about 41% of an entire current U.S. corn crop. But that number should not be mistaken for a demand forecast.
It represents an addressable-market scenario based on an assumed 10% penetration rate. Reaching anything close to that level would require years of investment in fermentation and biomanufacturing capacity, competitive economics versus petroleum, new infrastructure, product qualification, financing and dependable feedstock supply.
Still, even a fraction of 6.6 billion bushels would matter enormously to agriculture. Capturing only one-tenth of NCGA’s 6.6-billion-bushel scenario would mean roughly 660 million bushels of additional annual demand — already large enough to have meaningful implications for corn balance sheets, basis levels and processing investment.
Figure 2. NCGA’s 6.6-billion-bushel bioplastics scenario compared with the 2026 U.S. corn crop. Sources: NCGA comments to OMB; USDA Aug. 12 WASDE.
Why Classification Can Influence Investment
A NAICS code does not itself create corn demand. It does not provide a tax credit, construct a biorefinery or guarantee that corn can economically replace petroleum.
What it does is create statistical infrastructure. Dedicated classifications could allow Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and other agencies to more clearly measure establishments, employment, wages, capital investment and output associated with particular biomanufacturing processes. OMB notes that NAICS data are widely used not only by federal statistical agencies but also by states, trade groups and private businesses.
That becomes particularly important when Congress or an administration wants to know whether tax incentives, federal procurement programs or manufacturing policies are actually generating domestic investment.
NCGA makes precisely that point: without identifiable classifications, it becomes harder to determine whether public policy is attracting private capital, expanding manufacturing, creating jobs or generating additional markets for agricultural commodities.
For rural America, the implications go beyond corn prices. New biomanufacturing plants would typically be most competitive where feedstocks are abundant, potentially adding local processing demand, jobs, transportation activity and another bidder for grain.
OMB Has Legitimate Statistical Concerns
There is nevertheless a legitimate reason the ECPC has been cautious. The federal bioeconomy working group identified several difficulties: some plants make both conventional and biobased products; biological activity may be a secondary rather than primary business; very small numbers of establishments can create confidentiality problems; and creating new classifications can break historical industry time series.
Those are not trivial objections. In some cases, product classifications under NAPCS may be a better measurement tool than creating an entirely new NAICS industry. The federal working group specifically recommended considering that alternative.
That may ultimately provide OMB a middle path: establish targeted NAICS codes where production processes are genuinely distinctive while expanding product-level data elsewhere.
Bottom line
NCGA’s filing is about much more than statistical bookkeeping. Corn agriculture has already experienced what happens when a new industrial market reaches scale: Fuel ethanol transformed the U.S. corn balance sheet. Growers are now looking to sustainable aviation fuel, renewable chemicals, bioplastics and other biomanufactured products for another round of demand diversification. NCGA argues the government is attempting to evaluate that emerging market with classifications built largely for the petroleum-based industrial economy.
The strongest version of its case is not that OMB should label everything renewable as a separate industry. Rather, it is that distinct new production processes deserve distinct statistical identities when they are economically significant and measurable. That approach would also fit more comfortably with NAICS’ existing methodology.
OMB now must review the comments and issue its final decisions for NAICS 2027. The revised classification is scheduled to apply to establishment data for periods beginning Jan. 1, 2027.
The key question is whether OMB accepts targeted bioeconomy classifications now or effectively leaves much of the sector statistically buried for another five-year NAICS cycle.
For corn growers, that decision will not determine whether the bioeconomy succeeds. But it could determine how clearly policymakers and investors can see it developing — and how quickly they recognize agriculture’s potential role in supplying it.
Sources: NCGA comments to OMB (Aug. 12, 2026); OMB Economic Classification Policy Committee proposed 2027 NAICS revisions (July 13, 2026); 7 U.S.C. §8102, as amended by the 2018 Farm Bill; 2023 USDA-led federal interagency bioeconomy measurement working group; USDA Aug. 12 WASDE.
AG POLICY & MARKETS DAILY | POLICY ANALYSIS | CORN & THE BIOECONOMY — THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026
