This bill has complicated implications. But one of the drivers is sincere. What has become a problem over the years, is that seeds genetically modified for hardiness and other factors, requiring less crop rotation, less fertilizer, pesticides, higher yields have company restrictions. This is due to patent protections. If you buy our product, you may not save back any of the harvest for seed the following year. Farmers hate this, because it means they have to pay every year for more product. From the company's standpoint, there is incredible cost in the research and development of new seed. They have to recoup their investment. If they could only sell once to the farmer or ADM(Archer Midland Daniels) it would not be worth it to continue research. so first is the cost. second is control. The farmer doesn't want to be controlled by another company as to how to plant, how to harvest. that's reasonable. But with every genetic advancement there are issues. Like keeping a particular drug pure, seed is easily altered once planted. The goal is to make sure practices are in place to keep the seed from naturally altering due to environmental conditions. There have been many court cases about this. Think of it like fighting between farmers and ranchers. Both sides have a valid argument, however, there will have to be some solution that both sides can live with. This should be settled by the courts. But, as usual, sometimes you have rule of law, and others you do not. Looks like the companies lobbied to get this done, with no legislative debate. that's bad for everyone

I meant to type Time not Lime, although that could apply too. ;D