Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT)]: He patents other forms of IP over those seeds that make it illegal for farmers to save and share those seeds. There are also commercial seed companies who, as a part of their business model, really actively educate their customers on how to save the seeds that they're selling in order to make sure that those seeds are widely available to folks who are doing that work for noncommercial purposes. As I was talking to Alexis on the phone from our office at NOFA yesterday about this topic, I looked over and realized that on the wall right next to me, there was a poster from Fruition Seeds. I have no idea how long this poster has been on the wall at NOFA. But it is a poster that a seed company put out that has columns for the seeds that they sell that show how easy they are to save their life cycle, whether they are wet or dry seeded, whether they're self- or cross pollinating. And it just really struck me that that's a helpful example to think about. This is a company that was engaging in the commercial sale of seeds but that was also really actively educating its customers about how to save those seeds, which theoretically goes against their profit interests. But there are other really important interests that we need to be considering when it comes to seed. And so that's why we're asking you to push pause and hear from more folks about this language. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. When I looked at this section, you know, this part of 03/23, I didn't see anything in here. You know, if you buy decal corn seed you know, I buy channel, so it's sister company decal. We sign you know, we we sign a waiver, you know, that, you know, that says we will not we will not abuse their technology, if you will. Matter of fact, it used to be that plant, you know, we have the refuge is now in the bag for those traits. But we and it being a hybrid, what comes off the cob is not necessarily what went in the ground. But we can't take that grain off the cob and and and propagate it out again. It you know, we signed a a waiver to that effect. And I didn't see anything in here that would prevent Burlington seed company that made their own seed for allowing people to, you know, do what they wish they could do with it. All I see is in here is is consumer protections on labeling and whatnot. Newport Farm and Garden puts a bin of red clover seed out for people to get to, you know, buy it by the pound instead of the 50 pound bag. They have to put the tag with it, the lock number and whatnot for consumer protections. That's you know in upgraded in here, you know it protects against having noxious weed seed you know over a certain percentage which is very very low in your in your seed, know, and it it defines distributor and and, you know, seller, know, and you're assuming that seed's coming from out of state and then it's distributed around. You know, this doesn't even stop your NOFA seed swap because when people come in there, you know, it is not mandated that you bring seed to get seed. You know, people do it, and and and no one, the seed police isn't gonna show up and say, you can't you can't do that. You know, just like I distributed watermelons, radish seeds because I bought a package of 300, and I came in and gave everybody 30 seeds because I don't need to plant 300 watermelon radish seeds. No one's gonna come in and say, you can't do that. I did write on the package watermelon radish. I should have put the lot number, but other than that That's not true. I don't understand the you know, what what exactly it is that frightens you with this with this law, I guess, or this, you know, clarifying language as they put it.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT)]: I just think we see it as more than clarifying language. And just like the example that I can give that's the most concrete is that the distribute definition, including the word barter and including supplying of seeds in a really general sense, does indicate to us that there would be labeling requirements potentially imposed on noncommercial seed sharing situations. And then the other language that we pointed to earlier around allowing the Secretary to adopt other terms and conditions that are included in this Association of American Seed Control document, the recommended uniform state seed law. There are portions of that that would concern us if they were able to be freely adopted by the Secretary without more community engagement. And I can give you one example. So in that Russell document and I can send this to the committee. I'm sorry I didn't send it ahead of time because I wasn't planning to reference it. But for example, there are some pretty intense enumerated labeling requirements in the Russell document for noncommercial seed sharing particularly that, I think, if they were to be able to be adopted by the Secretary without additional input from folks who are engaging in that activity, would feel burdensome. And we really want to see seed policy that is actively if it is saying anything about noncommercial activity, that is actively supporting that activity as a really core part of the food resiliency that's the charge of this committee. And I will just say, again, as someone who is not deeply embedded in the seed world, as I have looked at this language and shared it with people who are genuine seed growers and seed policy experts, we've heard from numerous of them now that they really support just putting this on pause so that they can be in the room. And I will say specifically, we recommend that the committee hear from a few people just as examples. Sylvia Davitz, who's the founder of Solstice Seeds and a really storied seed sharer and seed grower who's educated a lot of folks in Vermont and beyond about seeds. Charlie Watt, who is a young farmer and new founder of a seed company called Homecoming Seeds. And then lastly, Keke Hubbard, who I've known for a really long time, who was the former policy director at the Organic Seed Alliance, is currently working on a resource with the Vermont Law and Graduate School folks at CABS around state seed policy, who has really been looking deeply at how seed policy looks in different states and what the implications are for seed sovereignty, for community seed systems, and for the commercial seed industry, who could share a lot more with this committee than you've had the time to hear that I think is really important and that I think would help the statecraft policy that is really thoughtful. That's not just saying, well, we're going to make some of these technical changes because they don't necessarily feel that impactful. But what do we actually want our seed policy to say? And what activity do we want to really be supporting and protecting in this state, including commercial interests to the degree that we want to support that? So I will just say before I pass it off to Alexis, the last thing. I just really want to stress that we are wondering about the impact and the urgency of passing this policy language before July. We're wondering what the negative impact would be of pressing pause on the substantive parts of this language or the parts that we're feeling are more substantive. And we really appreciated Regan's question last week when we were here with you all right after, which is what is the problem we're solving here? And we would also add who does the language currently benefit? So Alexis can share more about the complexities of the seed industry to just give you a little bit more. And some of you may know this already, but just to illustrate why we feel so strongly about getting this right. And I also just want to stress that we want to continue to be a resource for you, with you, to work with you on this. And we have really unearthed, just in the last couple of weeks, such a trove of expertise on this topic that we're excited to share more with you about.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just a process question. So this is a Senate bill. Is this language the language as introduced? Do you know, or did you testify in Senate Ag on this? I did not. Not

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT)]: okay. The language that we've been referencing is the language that passed the Senate. So I don't know if there were changes made in Senate AG. You didn't

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: take testimony from NOFA as far as you, well, from you anyway.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT)]: No, and not from NOFA.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah, so is it accurate to say that authorship

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT)]: of these sections come from the commercial seed growing industry? I think that's likely. And I think that's really a question for the agency who they've consulted with in bringing this language forward. But the heading of the section being around uniform seed law points to me to it being largely derived from that American Association of Seed Control Officials document and from that group.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Did you want to share a screen? Yes,

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: you can share a screen.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And it starts on page

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Starts on page four. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You have this document? Yes. Okay. So Alexis, do you wanna introduce yourself?

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: Yes, and thank you so much for having me speak here again. For the record, my name is Alexis Yamashita. Just to briefly describe my role with seeds, I wear multiple hats. I know I mentioned I'm a seed grower, a former manager of two seed companies last time I spoke. Something additional too, I'm a food system PhD student at the University of Vermont, and the focus of my research work is participatory plant grading as well, for a member of the Organic Seed Alliance and also a board member with NOFA. Just to be clear today, I am speaking to you today as a NOFA board member and a student grower. As Maddie, I wanna echo everything that Maddie said. And just to kind of give some more context to really the complex landscape that we're engaging in, I have just a few brief slides. And first I wanna talk about kind of the complexities of when we're talking about the commercial industry and who's in the room. So what you see on the screen right now is the work of a scholar named Phil Howard, who does a lot of research, extensive research about consolidation in different sectors of our food system, including the commercial seed industry. So what you're seeing here is a infographic showing the relationship of ownership of the dominant seed companies in our commercial seed industry. And just to mention what you're seeing here, as far as the seed companies go, you can see in the large circles, those are the four biochemical companies that really we can see what a consumer may think is a diversified seed landscape, but really rolls up in ownership to these four biochemical companies. And what this represents is over half of commercial seed sales globally. One thing to note in Phil Howard's work, he makes the argument with the consolidation in many different food sectors, including the seed industry, that really the goal of this consolidation is of course to not only profit, but to consolidate power and corporate control as well. One other thing I wanna mention on the slide two is this is the update that was done in 2022. Previously, Phil Howard had done a update in the 2010s. And at that time there were six biochemical companies. And that's when you'll see Monsanto as a circle on it. But in not too many years later, Monsanto has merged with Bayer. So just kind of pointing out the rapid rate of consolidation that we've seen over the twentieth century. Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There is enough.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I'm familiar with four all four of those companies. Mhmm. And the blue goes out, you know, you call them seed companies, and a lot of those are seed breeders. How if you took out all the ones that related to corn and soybean, you know, if you got into the vegetable market and the grasses, Are a lot of those represented on here or is this largely corn and soybean represented up on here?

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: I will be honest to my understanding, of course, as we know with the ag industry, this is most likely representing a lot of corn and soy, but we are talking about other diversified crops here with the seed companies. So we're talking, my understanding of Phil Howard's work is this is talking about commercial seed writ large.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: And pine

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: mowing started

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: up the last twenty years. They out of hardwood. Volga. Volga. And they've been able to grow quite a successful business.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes,

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: and that's one thing to make a comment on that is acknowledging that there are really, there's a broad spectrum of seed companies like Chaimowing that focuses on organic seed. And a bunch of small and medium sized companies, like even the company that Maddie was mentioning that the farmer, Charlie Watt, who is a Vermont resident recently started homecoming seeds. So the reason why I wanted to bring in this infographic is to really contextualize when we're thinking about commercial industry at large, that it is, as Maddie was mentioning at the top, there's a spectrum there and that it is a very diversified landscape. And when we're talking about who is in the room and being able to voice feedback on our policies, it is important that we're understanding who in the commercial industry is really bringing voice to those policies and proposals. Because there is I think it's something that we need to acknowledge is there is this dominant biochemical commercial industry that is out there under commercial industry. And also, as we're saying, small and medium sized diversified seed companies here. So in really talking about how we can serve the best interest of commercial seed. And I think, and I hope I'm not misremembering, but I remember last week, I remember one representative mentioned larger companies edging out smaller companies as well. So I think that's also something to be mindful of is when we're talking about crafting policy, that is really If it is influenced by commercial industry, that we wanna make sure there's diversified voices and also voices of small and medium sized, again, diversified seed companies as well. Next slide. So just to tag onto that of, again, really showing this to demonstrate the complexity and some of the issues that are out there. So again, going back to the consolidation that we have seen in the rise of the dominant biochemical companies in the twentieth century, what you see here is infographic from a study that was done in 1983 by the Rural Advancement Foundation International or RAFI. And what they did is looked at seed catalogs that were around in 1903 to see how many different varieties of crops that existed. And then what they did is try to find a comparative baseline eighty years later in 1983, and looking at the National Seed Storage Library and seeing what is left of those varieties that were right around the twentieth century. And we'll just use Sweet Corn, for example. So in 1903, there were three zero seven varieties of Sweet Corn. And then in 1983, we could see of those three zero seven varieties, there were only 12 left. And you could go across these common crop varieties. So my time and my work with seeds, seed biodiversity loss is a significant issue we really need to be mindful of. And also being mindful too, that there are certain commercial contributing factors, including consolidation that have contributed to the landscape of seed variety loss. So, and just to show what that graphic looks like in summation. So in these common crop varieties, what that represented at the turn of the century was over three, close to little under 4,000 varieties. In 1983, only three seventy varieties remain, which means there was 90% of loss of that diversity. So just one more example to wrap up, and this is kind of more shifting to hopefully kind of illustrate some of the complexities and what Maddie and I had been mentioning of like the connections between commercial and non commercial activities. So this is an example of a participatory plant breeding project and quickly define that term. What participatory plant breeding is, is taking approaches to plant breeding where it's more of a collaborative effort of university trained plant breeders working with farmers in an active process to approach different plant breeding initiatives. So what you see here is a picture from High Mowing Seeds Catalog and the Carnelian Carrot. So this carrot was actually developed by the Organic Seed Alliance and they had some plant breeders leading the project, but they were also very much collaboratively working with farmers to do on farm trials and having the farmers involved in the development. And as you can see here, this is now a commercially released variety. What I wanna highlight, and I wanna quickly read this excerpt here. So this comes from the Organic Seed Alliances article talking about the project that was undertaken to develop the carrot that I just showed in high mowing seeds catalog. So I'm just gonna read this as quickly as possible. To ensure broad access, seeds of the varieties we co develop must then be multiplied and distributed. In some cases, the farmers or farm networks we partner with save seed a new varieties and continue to select on farm and share with other farmers in their networks. To spread the seed even further, we also partnered with small to medium scale seed companies who sell organic and ecologically grown seed. These companies help spread access by increasing the quantity of seed available and by distributing it through regional and national sales. We never patent the varieties we develop, so anyone is free to save seed and continue selecting or breeding new varieties. The companies we partner with share a percent of their profits with our research program to support our ability to continue expanding our participatory plant breeding and stewarding of the varieties we've co developed into the future. Seed companies can get involved by participating in variety trials of up and coming new varieties from our research program. We strive to inclusively invite a wide diversity of companies to participate in our annual trials and communicate with us about interest in collaborating in sales.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Representative Nelson. Thank you. So, business model, high mowing seeds, they do a great job. I'm not organic, but I plant some of their hybrids, you know, their varieties, varieties in my garden because This conformity to seed rules doesn't prohibit this at all. The only thing it would say is, and high mowing seed has a great, you know, their bag or or whatever, you know, explains what you're buying and what's in it. They do a great job of that. That's, you know, consumer protection. If this doesn't prohibit at all from what's going on here or research at universities or whatnot. Matter of fact, they probably encourage it. So I I don't know what your concerns are with this section and what you're doing here. You explain that to me.

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: Yeah. So, and I appreciate this comment and question. What I really wanted to present today, and what Maddie and I are talking about is raising questions that need further time to get more voices in the room and consideration. And one thing that I will say, and I wanna pose as a question more than a concern, because again, I think we need to have like some more process to really dig into how some of these finer details are manifesting in policy. But one question I have is looking at, to use an example, is what Maddie was referring to earlier of like the replacement of sold to distribute and like labeling requirements. Just wondering how this might impact like movement of seed stock, even in research or non research activities and really questioning if any of this Because my understanding of looking at the current policy and again, replacing a lot of places with sold to distribute, it brings up questions of certain movements of seeds within different activities of research, commercial could be more regulated in questioning if this might hinder or impact those activities, if that makes sense.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Mentioned consumer protection a couple of times, at least I know they're labeling changes to labeling To requirements the extent that any proposed changes to labeling doesn't involve definitions of distributor. I think I'm hearing that your concern is really over the new definition of adding a definition of distribute and then replacing the word sell with distribute so that it now encompasses barter or free exchange. So I think that what we probably would want to do is look more specifically at the language here and see where does your concern affect and where does it not affect the other changes that are being proposed. Representative Bos-Lun?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah, I remember asking when we had previous testimony about seeds, about two issues that you guys have both touched on today. One was about restrictions on seed saving. And I remember talking about anecdotally, situations I'm aware of from India, where there were policies passed where large, like, GMO produced seeds came in, and then suddenly you weren't allowed to save your old seeds anymore. And so, was like, Oh, that didn't work so well in India. I don't want that to happen to Vermont. And then I also asked about the seed swap. I went to NOFA and I like that. I think that's a nice idea. And at the time, remember being entirely reassured that this wasn't gonna be any problem, that these would all be good. But what we're hearing right now from two different people who are knowledgeable about this is that there is a lot of concern from other people who are knowledgeable about this, who have a different perspective than we've heard before. And honestly, that makes me feel like I can't support this right now. I mean, my sympathies are right here. If we don't have more information, if we don't have time to take more testimony from the kind of people that Maddie suggested, I don't feel like I can support making extra restrictions when they might have bigger ramifications than what we're intending. Okay,

[Rep. John O'Brien]: representative O'Brien. Just along those lines, if the language from these sections came from the commercial seed industry, I just wanted to hear in your opinions whether traditionally, historically, there's been a conflict between the non commercial and commercial industries. To some extent, whether this was unintentional, which I find hard to believe, or perhaps intentional, What's their end goal besides the large commercial industries like to consolidate, like you've mentioned? Is this just to make life more difficult for non commercial? Or does it actually, is it sort of a jurisdictional grab where they're going to increase market share, which is what they're really interested in?

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: Yeah, I appreciate that. A couple of things come to mind and kind of talking about your first question, there been any issues between like kind of that commercial non commercial, if it's okay to bring in another historical context? So back in the mid, late nineteenth century, when the USDA got founded,

[Rep. John O'Brien]: one

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: of their core functions was a free seed distribution to farmers. It was a program for free seed distribution And it wasn't only to provide farmers with seeds, but it was also to encourage them to effectively get in, be involved in plant breeding activity, but by selection too. In 1920s, there was mounting pressures from private industry VC companies. And just to be completely frank, the American Trade Association, it was one of the big influences that put pressure on the USDA to actually end that free seed distribution program to farmers. So I think when you just hearing your question about like, has there historically been, like issues between commercial and non commercial, that's the first thing that comes to mind and seeing that one of the core functions on the establishment of USDA was a free seed distribution program for farmers that as really representing commercial seed industry was able to be one of the leading voices to get shut down. And about, and I apologize, what was your second question? You had to raise more to that.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Whether the language has almost sort of a, I guess, a for profit. Would that motivation be? Or is it just to create more regulations? It's just harder, like labeling, for example, for the noncommercial or is it really somehow we can actually grab 10% of market share?

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: Yeah, so just like the issues in that, and it's something where I would say if there is a time and capacity to come back to dig deeper, I would definitely be enthusiastic to do that. The short answer is there are a lot of complications in that. And I do agree, it's not only about profit and power, but really we're also talking about food sovereignty, the right to choice to food, who has access to food, and even like talking about access to culturally relevant foods too. And also what that looks like for a lot of different communities. So I will say from my experience and my opinion, that issue is deep and wide, and there's a myriad of spectrum of issues. And I do agree it's not only about, like talking about business control and profit. And just to quickly mention too of what represented Bos-Londe just mentioned with other countries. There's another example too from Kenya where, and really this comes from the biochemical companies in controlling seed, like the example you were mentioning, but in Kenya, farmers, they are caught not dealing with certified seed and certified seed being this commercial seed that's really dominantly out there, they can actually be put in jail or incur severe fines. So it's something that I think anywhere globally when we're talking about policy, it's just also talking about the precedents is that may be opening doors to questioning, could this be leading us down a path, maybe not exactly where Kenya is. But again, going back to my earlier comment to representative Nelson's question, just really wanting to take time to make sure there aren't any unintended consequences that are happening for our policy. And very much, as Maddie said, we're really wanting to work with everybody, make this a generative and collaborative process to make sure that we're really serving a diversified landscape that is really benefiting our farmers and communities in Vermont. So just to kind of briefly wrap this up, my concise answer to the question is yes, there are a myriad of different concerns beyond that. And that goes really deep and wide. And again, if there's any interest or like specific questions, like I'm always willing to come back and talk. I know Maddie and I can be in touch with other people to bring more voices to the table about those issues as well.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: So just a quick follow-up then. Seed Trade Organization Association, we had a rep from.

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: American Seed Trade Association.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: So, say the companies that you were general manager of, or you mentioned, Maddie, would they in general belong to that? Or are there a whole universe of seed growers, like small ones, etcetera, that might not even belong to that? So if there's a motive, it seems like it would be I

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: can start out and then I should pass Sure. It to to answer the question, the two seed companies that I belong to were not members of ASTA. And I also want to mention too that this is where we're really having a both end conversation with ASTA, is knowing that ASTA does have this complicated history. And there are, to speak frankly, there are a lot of negative impacts by looking at historically, the actions of And at the same time too, knowing that ASTA represents over six fifty different seed companies and knowing that high mowing seeds is a part of ASTA too. This is also something I just really wanna mention too, to be mindful that even within ASTA, there we do need to acknowledge that the biochemical companies are really a dominant voice. Even as a side note, if you look on ASTA's website and look at who's in the leadership position, they're the majority from the biochemical companies. But even in ASTA, just being aware that we're not, for lack of better way to say it, kind of blanket villain or like blanket grouping, all of the seed companies as the same within ASTA, because there are companies in ASTA that do contribute to a diversified landscape. So again, just really trying to make the point that all of these factors that we're really talking about, every one of them, it's really complicated and there's intricate relationships here that we wanna be mindful of.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT)]: I just want to respond to the second part of one of your questions to your upper brain where you asked about the intent of this language. I hesitate to honestly make too many assumptions about the intent, just seeing it on its face and not having been a part of the conversations that led to its introduction. But when I look at the definition of distribute that's included here being so broad and then everything that follows or nearly everything that follows that, really establishing what feels like an expanded regulatory framework that could potentially pull a lot more entities and activity under it, that gives me pause. It makes me feel concerned that, for example, folks trying to engage in the type of participatory plant breeding research that Alexis was speaking to would fall under different registration and reporting requirements, for example. When I look at the recommended uniform state seed law, to your question about whether this language feels like it is preferencing and protecting commercial activity, I do feel like it does. Because the definition in that RUSLE document around requirements for noncommercial seed sharing in part includes this language that says that each location involved with noncommercial seed sharing, a legible invisible sign shall state that the seeds being distributed may not meet germination or varietal purity standards prescribed by the state seed law. The sign also must state that patented seed or varieties protected by the Plant Variety Protection Act will not be accepted or distributed without permission of the certificate So if the language that is currently in S-three 23 around the ability of the secretary to bring in any of these additional terms and conditions in Russell goes forward, they could require that kind of signage at something like the NOFA seed swap, which in and of itself, maybe that doesn't feel like a deal breaker. But farmers in particular in this room, Rob Nelson, Rob Bird, very much understand. I know death by 1,000 cuts is a very real thing. And we don't want to start creating a regulatory framework around noncommercial seed activity that has that effect on what we want to be supporting.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I just wanted to, before turning to Rep. Nelson, thinking about the way you framed the question, John, commercial versus noncommercial. So I'm not sure what you were thinking there, because part of the dichotomy area, I think, is well, we've heard large chemical companies that sell seed versus other companies. And we've heard about seeds that are patented or have intellectual property rights associated with them that can't be, you can't sell or even use the seeds that might come from plants. So I'm thinking as you were asking the question and as you were answering, well, that's not commercial versus not commercial. That's the distinction there, but it's not non commercial. But then you also mentioned the USDA one hundred years ago giving away, I think, you said. So that's not commercial, that's public and it's giving them away. But I'm not sure if that's what you meant, John, when you asked the question. Non commercial, what were you thinking when you said it? Well, I

[Rep. John O'Brien]: think everything from seed swaps to botanists who aren't necessarily doing it for money.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Research or Yeah, research or

[Rep. John O'Brien]: just plant lovers, etcetera, who just want to propagate and share that, and maybe at some point become like the carrots you just showed. Far down the food chain, there are people who just like plants and creating new varieties. Apples is a great example. A million apples out there, right? And you can only find maybe 10 now at grocery stores. Remember, I think it was Bill and Kate Logan once writing about potatoes in 1881, and you could buy up to 600 varieties at the green markets there at that point.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT)]: The number of varieties of potatoes in Peru is probably in that number.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: where you're seeing narrowing of the varieties or hybrids or all varieties is

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: people

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: grow what tastes best, what looks best. Burtt and I had a conversation on the way in. You go to the store anymore, do you find an odd shaped apple in the store? They're all the same, and they're all unblemished, and that's what the consumer general consumer wants. When they grow carrots, they want them all to be this long, this shape. They don't want them to have the look like a cow's udder like they do coming out of my garage, which tastes fine. But that would go as a second or a third. So they've selected hybrids or varieties over the years that bring consistency and conformity. And, you know, sweet corn, the sweet corn we planted back when I was seven years old, started selling sweet corn, it nowhere near as good as sweet corn I grow today. And so you have less hybrids, which sweet corn would be a hybrid. You have less hybrids than you did back end because it's narrowed down to what the consumer wants. And, you know, in in in in Russell, when they say you're having your seed swap, you just get out of the sign saying, look, you know, there's no guarantee, you know, someone has a bag of Swiss chard and a bag of beet seeds. And if you don't label those bags correctly, you look at them, they look just exactly the same. That funny little shaped seed, they look the same. So to have that sign on a seed swap and there's nothing in here stopping a seed swap, and there's nothing in here stopping the breeding and the exploration of no seed hybrids. But I could get someone that can zoom in here and tell you what it costs to develop a corn high hybrid or soybean variety. And the cost is astronomical, and they want protections on those seeds so they can recoup their costs. It takes years to develop. Matter of fact, to speed up development, they'll plant one part of the plant in America this year, harvest it, whisk that seed down to South America to propagate it again so they can cross pollinate it over two or three generations to get what they want instead of waiting till next spring to do it here in North America. So they get they're they're really these plant scientists are working really hard to develop hybrids that are more disease resistant and insect tolerant without the use of neonics. Above ground and below ground protections we have now, we don't have to spray grizzly to protect against corn bore because we had and they got Western bean cupworm protection now coming. It's just a lot of money, and they just want protections on those. I I don't see the same in the vegetable world, but I may be naive to that. And if I am, I apologize. Anyway, that's my and I appreciate what you're bringing to the table with this. And I just don't think that's the intention of ASTA and Russell is to stop all the wonderful things that you folks are doing in breeding and creating new and whether it's flowers or or whatnot.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Look. Representative Bos-Lun.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I was just gonna say in in response to what was just stated, I just feel like it isn't our job to support the big companies. Like, they're getting bigger because they're merging and they are making money over time. And if there's really a disastrous problem and the large companies that make corn seeds are gonna go out of business, it's not gonna change if we delay it and take more testimony in January and pass this through next year. It just feels to me like rushing something, if we're hearing from people who are close to this issue, that there are concerns, it just doesn't feel like a good time for us to move it forward. Like what's the advantage to that? I mean, the advantage is we're talking about six months of difference. I would rather have more time to take testimony.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just, I'll get to everybody, but I don't know whether you have a tire stop at noon. We should probably plan to wrap up in a few minutes anyway. If there are any First, before we have any other comments from committee or discussion, any any other questions for our witnesses? Okay. Reverend Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I'm I'm trying to, again, wrap my head around. I'm gonna go to your first visual graph where you had the burgundy large corpse, these blues and there's few scattered green indicators. Where would high molten fit into? Are they in one of those colored groups or

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: No. I can pull up to answer your question while I'm pulling my slides back up, the answer is high mowing is not in this because they are an independently owned company.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Is that

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: full ownership of No, no, that's

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: No, that's So, yeah, High Mowing has full ownership of their own entity, so they're standalone. This is showing the seed companies that have ownership relationships to the big biochemical companies. And yes, and I can confirm high molyne is not in this.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: So they're even too tiny to show up?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: A company like Burtti, would that be somewhere in here?

[Alexis Yamashita (NOFA board member; seed grower)]: I don't think Burtti is. Burtti, I know, is an heirloom seed company. So this is also just to make a quick note of you know, really questioning what we need to do to support, like, even within commercial, like a diversified business landscape where we are supporting small and medium sized producers. And, again, just wanting to make sure that there's nothing in policy that again doesn't have any unintended consequences that could contribute to further advancing a consolidated landscape.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay. Good. You know, just follow-up. I'm talking about what we dealt with previous biennium with right to repair. You know, all these manufacturers that have been consolidated with these, and you have only one source. There's one mechanic in Bangalore, Maine that can service the forest industry equipment here and a trip back and forth machine and computers, 7 to $9,000 expense to a small logger like myself.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: See,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: consolidation isn't necessarily good when when you lose any capacity. And I I don't know that it's irrelevant, but this graph is a little disturbing.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: haven't moved much. I'm still in an exciting spot, but maybe because I didn't get here till I didn't figure it out. Right? I I didn't get that yet. I didn't get everything you got to answer last time.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: What started? Obviously

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Why this is necessary?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Fall team.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Reporter, I'm not answering the question.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I know, but I'm just asking. And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm not ignoring the question, but representative I don't know

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the question. I'm landing where representative Basland is. And the point about that slide, that initial site with those big circles is really scary. We don't want any unanticipated or unexpected consequences here. Those big circles, the goal of those companies is to control everything that anybody eats anywhere. That is their goal, that is their mission. And we need to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: make sure that we don't do something unintended. We

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: are on the floor at one. With a big bill that may take up, that will take up, I would say, better part of the afternoon.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Fire and bill?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, yep. If we are done when we're done, let's plan to check-in, and I would say if it's after four we certainly won't meet. But if it's any earlier than four, we might meet just for a few minutes if we're all still here to try and move forward incrementally on this bill, which I would like to try ask Patricia to put potential vote tomorrow on. So we'll work this afternoon on some changes to this section, it sounds like. And I might check-in individually with folks about some of the other sections, and then we'll try and be in a good place for tomorrow. Thanks for the great discussion. Thank you for coming in.

[Maddie Kempner (NOFA-VT)]: Thank you so much for your time.