NOFA witnesses urge pause on proposed seed‑law language, lawmakers seek more input

Members of the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee heard more than an hour of testimony Tuesday about proposed changes to state seed law and stopped short of advancing the measure, with witnesses urging a pause. Testifiers from NOFA and seed‑system experts warned that drafting choices — including replacing the word “sell” with “distribute” and language permitting the secretary to adopt terms from the Recommended Uniform State Seed Law — could sweep small, non‑commercial seed exchanges into new labeling and reporting requirements.

“For those doing this work for non‑commercial purposes, we’re asking you to push pause and and hear from more folks about this language,” said Maddie, a NOFA-affiliated speaker who testified about community seed sharing and labeling concerns. For the record, Alexis Yamashita introduced herself to the committee as “a NOFA board member and a seed grower” and as a food‑system PhD student; she described industry consolidation and communal breeding practices during her presentation.

Why it matters: witnesses said the changes risk creating administrative burdens that would undercut community seed swaps, participatory breeding and small seed businesses that help preserve crop diversity. Yamashita cited historical and research examples to illustrate the stakes: a Rural Advancement Foundation International study comparing seed catalogs found sweet‑corn variety counts dropping from 307 in 1903 to 12 in 1983, and witnesses summarized that many common crop varieties were lost over the 20th century.

Committee members pressed witnesses for specifics. Representative Nelson said labeling and consumer‑protection provisions can be valuable and do not automatically stop breeding or saving seed, but he asked witnesses to point to concrete language that raised concerns. Witnesses highlighted a provision in the Russell/Recommended Uniform State Seed Law that, if adopted, would require visible signage at non‑commercial seed‑sharing locations and include explicit instructions about patented or variety‑protected seed.

“I don’t feel like I can support this right now,” Representative Balint said after hearing the testimony, urging the committee to take additional testimony from small‑scale seed growers and seed‑system practitioners before advancing the bill. Several members echoed that position, asking staff to work on clarifying edits and to solicit more expert input.

What witnesses recommended: pause substantive sections tied to distribution and the secretary’s authority to import standard language, and hold follow‑up hearings with named experts — including Sylvia Davids of Solstice Seeds, Charlie Wat of Homecoming Seeds, and Kiki Hubbard, formerly of the Organic Seed Alliance — to ensure the policy supports non‑commercial seed systems and small seed businesses.

A witness also described how participatory plant‑breeding projects distribute seed: small and medium seed companies multiply co‑developed varieties and do not patent them, she said, reading from Organic Seed Alliance materials: “We never patent the varieties we develop, so anyone is free to save seed and continue selecting or breeding new varieties.”

Next steps: committee staff said they would work through edits to the section and aim to position the bill for further consideration the following day, while several lawmakers and witnesses urged a longer pause to collect more testimony and guard against unintended consequences. No formal vote on the substantive language was recorded during the hearing.