Record $60,000 Seed Law Fine for North Dakota Farmer Puts ‘Seed Piracy’ and Plant Variety Protection Under the Microscope

What happened in Crystal, North Dakota?

A routine regulatory audit has turned into a landmark case for U.S. seed law enforcement.

According to a public notice from the North Dakota State Seed Department and reporting by Valley News Live, a farmer from Crystal, North Dakota, identified as Thomas Shephard, has paid $60,000 in penalties for multiple violations of state and federal seed laws, including infringement of variety owners’ rights under the Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Act. ^[1]

Regulators say the case centers on the unauthorized transfer and planting of protected spring wheat varieties. During the 2025 crop year, Shephard allegedly planted six fields with protected seed without proper authorization from the variety owners. Each violation drew the maximum civil penalty allowed under state law, leading to the total of $60,000. ^[2]

North Dakota State Seed Commissioner Ken Bertsch emphasized in the enforcement notice and subsequent media coverage that protecting variety owners’ rights is essential to what he called a “healthy, vibrant and profitable seed industry”, and likened unauthorized propagation of protected seed to theft of property or “seed piracy.” ^[3]

The department also notes that this is the largest seed regulatory penalty ever paid in North Dakota, underscoring how seriously the state now treats violations of seed intellectual‑property rules. ^[4]

Why the fine is so large: North Dakota’s tough seed law penalties

North Dakota has spent more than a decade deliberately sharpening its enforcement tools for seed law violations.

In 2015, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 2261, doubling the maximum civil penalty for seed‑IP violations from $5,000 to $10,000 per violation, making it the highest state‑level maximum in the U.S. for this kind of offense. ^[5]

State officials explained at the time that:

• The higher ceiling was aimed squarely at PVP Title V cases, where a protected variety may only be sold as a certified class (Foundation, Registered, or Certified seed). ^[6]
• The goal was to make violations of seed intellectual‑property rights significantly riskier and to send a clear deterrent message to anyone tempted to bypass certification or licensing (“brownbagging” or seed piracy). ^[7]

Subsequent Seed Department publications reiterate that current state code allows up to $10,000 per violation, and that this high cap was requested by the department itself “to foster and promote variety development” by giving breeders stronger protection. ^[8]

In Shephard’s case, regulators concluded that six separate fields each constituted a violation involving unauthorized planting of protected spring wheat. At $10,000 per field, the total fine reached the now‑headline‑making $60,000. ^[9]

How North Dakota seed laws work in practice

North Dakota’s seed regulatory framework is built around Chapter 4.1‑53 of the North Dakota Century Code and accompanying rules administered by the State Seed Department. That department is officially recognized by USDA as the state authority for both seed certification and seed regulatory activities. ^[10]

A few key elements matter for this case:

1. Certification and labeling

Under North Dakota Administrative Code 74‑03‑01‑12, any certified seed sold in the state must carry an official certification label on each container, clearly identifying: ^[11]

• The certification agency
• The variety name and kind
• The class of seed (Foundation, Registered, Certified)
• A lot number or other identification

Labelers and handlers must also:

• Keep detailed records for at least three years, including production volumes, sales by variety and lot, and current inventory. ^[12]
• Maintain a two‑pound reference sample of each lot for one year after final disposition. ^[13]
• Follow strict procedures for bulk sales, including approved bins, cleaned augers and conveyors, and proper documentation for each load.

Those requirements are designed to protect both the buyer and variety owners, and they give regulators a paper trail when they audit farms and seed businesses—as happened in Shephard’s case. ^[14]

2. Civil and administrative penalties

State rules explicitly warn that misuse of certification privileges or violations of seed law can trigger administrative fines by the State Seed Department, backed by the penalty and enforcement provisions in Century Code §§4.1‑53‑53 and 4.1‑53‑57. ^[15]

The department’s own manuals for approved seed conditioners spell this out in practical terms: violations of PVP‑related provisions or state seed law can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per violation or seed sale. ^[16]

Plant Variety Protection and the limits of “farmer‑saved seed”

This case is also a reminder that “farmer‑saved seed” is not a free‑for‑all—especially when Plant Variety Protection is involved.

The U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) gives breeders and variety owners exclusive rights to control the sale and marketing of protected seed for a set period (typically 20 years for most crops). ^[17]

Under PVPA and subsequent court interpretations:

• Farmers who legally purchase PVPA‑protected seed may usually save seed only to replant on their own holdings.
• They cannot legally sell, trade, or otherwise transfer that saved seed for planting by others, unless specifically authorized by the variety owner. ^[18]
• The U.S. Supreme Court in Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer held that the “farmer’s exemption” does not cover seed that was grown primarily as part of a marketing scheme for replanting—only seed genuinely saved for the farmer’s own acreage. ^[19]

Extension bulletins across the country now stress that PVPA‑protected varieties can be saved only for personal on‑farm replanting; any sale, swap, or unapproved transfer for planting is a violation. ^[20]

In North Dakota, many public and private wheat and durum varieties carry PVP Title V protection, meaning they may only be sold as certified seed. State authorities have warned for years that “brown‑bagging”—illegal farmer‑to‑farmer transfers of such varieties—will be targeted. ^[21]

A clear escalation from past North Dakota cases

The Shephard case marks a sharp jump from earlier North Dakota enforcement actions:

• In 2012, a farmer near Manning agreed to pay $11,500 in fines for illegally selling the protected spring wheat variety Glenn. ^[22]
• In 2017, two Minto farmers paid a combined $12,500 after an investigation found an illegal farmer‑to‑farmer transfer of the PVP‑protected variety Linkert. ^[23]

By contrast, the new Crystal case reaches $60,000, reflecting:

1. Use of the maximum $10,000 per violation now available under North Dakota law; and ^[24]
2. Regulators’ decision to treat each field of unauthorized spring wheat as a separate violation. ^[25]

That combination appears designed to send a strong signal that, in North Dakota, large‑scale unlicensed planting of protected varieties is no longer a “cost of doing business” but a high‑risk, high‑cost gamble.

What this means for farmers and seed businesses right now

Even without additional court filings or public lawsuits, this administrative enforcement action has immediate implications for growers, custom seed conditioners, and local seed dealers.

1. Audits are real—and detailed

The Crystal case came to light through a regulatory audit rather than a neighbor complaint or a lawsuit from a seed company. ^[26]

Because North Dakota requires:

• multi‑year recordkeeping for each certified lot,
• retention of physical seed samples, and
• clear documentation for bulk sales and transfers,

auditors can reconstruct seed movements and cross‑check them against PVP status and licensing arrangements. ^[27]

For farmers, that means:

• “Off‑the‑books” seed deals are increasingly easy for regulators to detect.
• Inconsistencies between acreage, yields, and certified seed purchases can raise red flags.

2. The real risk isn’t just the fine

North Dakota’s own seed officials have long argued that the threat of high penalties is meant to change behavior, not to generate revenue. In 2015, Commissioner Bertsch explicitly warned that the “only effective deterrent to seed piracy” is to raise the risk for those tempted to bypass proper licensing and certification. ^[28]

Beyond the fine itself, growers caught violating seed laws may face:

• Damaged relationships with local elevators, seed dealers, and breeders
• Possible loss of access to premium varieties or local contracting opportunities
• Greater scrutiny in future audits

Given margins in many wheat and specialty‑crop operations, a $60,000 hit can erase profits for an entire season.

3. Compliance is becoming a competitive factor

As more seed companies and public breeders rely on royalties to fund research, they are increasingly focused on protecting their IP. At the same time, regulators are under pressure to show that PVP and related laws are not toothless. ^[29]

In practical terms, farms and seed businesses that invest in strict compliance—clear contracts, clean recordkeeping, and verification of PVP status—may be better positioned to:

• Access new, higher‑yielding or specialty varieties
• Maintain trusted‑partner status with breeders and seed companies
• Avoid the reputational hit that can come from being publicly named in an enforcement action

A global backdrop: seed piracy, IP, and farmers’ rights

The North Dakota case lands at a moment when seed laws and farmers’ rights are under intense debate worldwide.

Economic losses from “seed piracy”

A 2025 study commissioned by CropLife Brasil and agribusiness consultancy Celeres found that soybean seed piracy in Brazil causes about 10 billion reais (roughly $1.76 billion) in losses every year, affecting around 11% of the country’s soybean area and likely reducing future investments in improved seed varieties. ^[30]

Industry groups point to numbers like these to argue that stronger enforcement—of patents, PVP rights, and certification rules—is essential to keep research pipelines alive and maintain a level playing field for legitimate seed businesses.

Pushback against criminalisation of farmers

At the same time, farmer and civil‑society groups warn that overly punitive seed laws can criminalise traditional practices such as saving and exchanging seed:

• In Kenya, a high court ruling in late November 2025 struck down parts of a 2012 seed law that had allowed authorities to raid community seed banks and subjected farmers to fines of up to 1 million Kenyan shillings and two‑year prison terms for sharing indigenous seed. Judges held that these provisions violated farmers’ rights and were not justified by the goal of combating counterfeit seed.
• Organisations like GRAIN, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and others have documented how seed laws influenced by international agreements such as UPOV 1991 and trade deals may restrict farmers’ ability to save, exchange, and sell seed, especially in the Global South. ^[31]

Critics worry that when penalties become too severe—or when laws treat traditional seed saving like commercial counterfeiting—smallholders and independent breeders are squeezed out, weakening seed diversity and local resilience. ^[32]

North Dakota’s approach is different from Kenya’s in that it targets commercial‑scale violations of PVP‑protected varieties, rather than traditional seed sharing of indigenous varieties. But the debate over where to draw the line between legitimate IP enforcement and over‑criminalisation is clearly global—and growing.

Short‑term outlook: what to expect after the North Dakota fine

As of December 9, 2025, there is no public indication of a parallel civil lawsuit from variety owners or additional criminal charges tied to the Crystal case. The matter is currently framed as an administrative enforcement action by the State Seed Department under existing seed laws and PVP rules. ^[33]

Based on recent legal changes, agency publications, and this latest enforcement step, several near‑term trends are likely:

1. More aggressive auditing in North Dakota
   • Seed regulators have repeatedly signalled that they intend to actively investigate “seed piracy” tips and pursue cases where documentation doesn’t line up. ^[34]
   • Given that the $60,000 fine uses the full statutory maximum per violation, auditors now have a high‑profile example when they warn growers what non‑compliance can cost.
2. Closer integration of state and federal enforcement
   • The Shephard case explicitly references both state and federal seed laws, including PVP provisions. ^[35]
   • Nationally, USDA’s Seed Regulatory and Testing Division has encouraged farmers and breeders to report suspected seed purity, labeling, or PVP violations, suggesting that state‑level actions may increasingly dovetail with federal oversight. ^[36]
3. More attention to contracts and tags at the farm gate
   • With fines now demonstrably high, growers who previously treated PVP language on seed bags as boilerplate are more likely to sit down with their seed dealers, co‑ops, or attorneys and clarify exactly what is and isn’t allowed.
   • Seed businesses will be under pressure to keep spotless records, clean equipment, and airtight labeling, knowing that they may be pulled into investigations if protected seed appears where it shouldn’t. ^[37]

Practical takeaways for farmers and ag professionals

For farmers, agronomists, and seed industry professionals reading about this case on December 9, 2025, the message is blunt but actionable:

• Know the protection status of every variety you plant.
  Check tags, invoices, and variety lists for PVPA, Title V, patent, or license statements, and keep that documentation with your farm records. ^[38]
• Assume that “quiet” seed deals can be traced.
  With mandatory record retention and clearer audit trails, it’s increasingly difficult to hide unlicensed transfers or off‑label use of protected seed. ^[39]
• Treat PVP and patent restrictions as seriously as pesticide labels.
  Violating them can carry comparable or even higher financial penalties than some environmental violations, and can affect your ability to access premium genetics in the future. ^[40]
• When in doubt, ask before you plant.
  State seed departments, extension specialists, and seed company reps would much rather answer a compliance question in January than investigate a seed piracy complaint after harvest.

The Crystal, North Dakota, case doesn’t just close the book on one farmer’s $60,000 mistake. It signals a new enforcement baseline for seed law in one of America’s most important small‑grain states—and adds another chapter to the global struggle to balance innovation, profitability, and farmers’ age‑old practice of saving seed.What happened in Crystal, North Dakota?

A routine regulatory audit has turned into a landmark case for U.S. seed law enforcement.

According to a public notice from the North Dakota State Seed Department and reporting by Valley News Live, a farmer from Crystal, North Dakota, identified as Thomas Shephard, has paid $60,000 in penalties for multiple violations of state and federal seed laws, including infringement of variety owners’ rights under the Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Act. ^[41]

Regulators say the case centers on the unauthorized transfer and planting of protected spring wheat varieties. During the 2025 crop year, Shephard allegedly planted six fields with protected seed without proper authorization from the variety owners. Each violation drew the maximum civil penalty allowed under state law, leading to the total of $60,000. ^[42]

North Dakota State Seed Commissioner Ken Bertsch emphasized in the enforcement notice and subsequent media coverage that protecting variety owners’ rights is essential to what he called a “healthy, vibrant and profitable seed industry”, and likened unauthorized propagation of protected seed to theft of property or “seed piracy.” ^[43]

The department also notes that this is the largest seed regulatory penalty ever paid in North Dakota, underscoring how seriously the state now treats violations of seed intellectual‑property rules. ^[44]

Why the fine is so large: North Dakota’s tough seed law penalties

North Dakota has spent more than a decade deliberately sharpening its enforcement tools for seed law violations.

In 2015, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 2261, doubling the maximum civil penalty for seed‑IP violations from $5,000 to $10,000 per violation, making it the highest state‑level maximum in the U.S. for this kind of offense. ^[45]

State officials explained at the time that:

• The higher ceiling was aimed squarely at PVP Title V cases, where a protected variety may only be sold as a certified class (Foundation, Registered, or Certified seed). ^[46]
• The goal was to make violations of seed intellectual‑property rights significantly riskier and to send a clear deterrent message to anyone tempted to bypass certification or licensing (“brownbagging” or seed piracy). ^[47]

Subsequent Seed Department publications reiterate that current state code allows up to $10,000 per violation, and that this high cap was requested by the department itself “to foster and promote variety development” by giving breeders stronger protection. ^[48]

In Shephard’s case, regulators concluded that six separate fields each constituted a violation involving unauthorized planting of protected spring wheat. At $10,000 per field, the total fine reached the now‑headline‑making $60,000. ^[49]

How North Dakota seed laws work in practice

North Dakota’s seed regulatory framework is built around Chapter 4.1‑53 of the North Dakota Century Code and accompanying rules administered by the State Seed Department. That department is officially recognized by USDA as the state authority for both seed certification and seed regulatory activities. ^[50]

A few key elements matter for this case:

1. Certification and labeling

Under North Dakota Administrative Code 74‑03‑01‑12, any certified seed sold in the state must carry an official certification label on each container, clearly identifying: ^[51]

• The certification agency
• The variety name and kind
• The class of seed (Foundation, Registered, Certified)
• A lot number or other identification

Labelers and handlers must also:

• Keep detailed records for at least three years, including production volumes, sales by variety and lot, and current inventory. ^[52]
• Maintain a two‑pound reference sample of each lot for one year after final disposition. ^[53]
• Follow strict procedures for bulk sales, including approved bins, cleaned augers and conveyors, and proper documentation for each load.

Those requirements are designed to protect both the buyer and variety owners, and they give regulators a paper trail when they audit farms and seed businesses—as happened in Shephard’s case. ^[54]

2. Civil and administrative penalties

State rules explicitly warn that misuse of certification privileges or violations of seed law can trigger administrative fines by the State Seed Department, backed by the penalty and enforcement provisions in Century Code §§4.1‑53‑53 and 4.1‑53‑57. ^[55]

The department’s own manuals for approved seed conditioners spell this out in practical terms: violations of PVP‑related provisions or state seed law can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per violation or seed sale. ^[56]

Plant Variety Protection and the limits of “farmer‑saved seed”

This case is also a reminder that “farmer‑saved seed” is not a free‑for‑all—especially when Plant Variety Protection is involved.

The U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) gives breeders and variety owners exclusive rights to control the sale and marketing of protected seed for a set period (typically 20 years for most crops). ^[57]

Under PVPA and subsequent court interpretations:

• Farmers who legally purchase PVPA‑protected seed may usually save seed only to replant on their own holdings.
• They cannot legally sell, trade, or otherwise transfer that saved seed for planting by others, unless specifically authorized by the variety owner. ^[58]
• The U.S. Supreme Court in Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer held that the “farmer’s exemption” does not cover seed that was grown primarily as part of a marketing scheme for replanting—only seed genuinely saved for the farmer’s own acreage. ^[59]

Extension bulletins across the country now stress that PVPA‑protected varieties can be saved only for personal on‑farm replanting; any sale, swap, or unapproved transfer for planting is a violation. ^[60]

In North Dakota, many public and private wheat and durum varieties carry PVP Title V protection, meaning they may only be sold as certified seed. State authorities have warned for years that “brown‑bagging”—illegal farmer‑to‑farmer transfers of such varieties—will be targeted. ^[61]

A clear escalation from past North Dakota cases

The Shephard case marks a sharp jump from earlier North Dakota enforcement actions:

• In 2012, a farmer near Manning agreed to pay $11,500 in fines for illegally selling the protected spring wheat variety Glenn. ^[62]
• In 2017, two Minto farmers paid a combined $12,500 after an investigation found an illegal farmer‑to‑farmer transfer of the PVP‑protected variety Linkert. ^[63]

By contrast, the new Crystal case reaches $60,000, reflecting:

1. Use of the maximum $10,000 per violation now available under North Dakota law; and ^[64]
2. Regulators’ decision to treat each field of unauthorized spring wheat as a separate violation. ^[65]

That combination appears designed to send a strong signal that, in North Dakota, large‑scale unlicensed planting of protected varieties is no longer a “cost of doing business” but a high‑risk, high‑cost gamble.

What this means for farmers and seed businesses right now

Even without additional court filings or public lawsuits, this administrative enforcement action has immediate implications for growers, custom seed conditioners, and local seed dealers.

1. Audits are real—and detailed

The Crystal case came to light through a regulatory audit rather than a neighbor complaint or a lawsuit from a seed company. ^[66]

Because North Dakota requires:

• multi‑year recordkeeping for each certified lot,
• retention of physical seed samples, and
• clear documentation for bulk sales and transfers,

auditors can reconstruct seed movements and cross‑check them against PVP status and licensing arrangements. ^[67]

For farmers, that means:

• “Off‑the‑books” seed deals are increasingly easy for regulators to detect.
• Inconsistencies between acreage, yields, and certified seed purchases can raise red flags.

2. The real risk isn’t just the fine

North Dakota’s own seed officials have long argued that the threat of high penalties is meant to change behavior, not to generate revenue. In 2015, Commissioner Bertsch explicitly warned that the “only effective deterrent to seed piracy” is to raise the risk for those tempted to bypass proper licensing and certification. ^[68]

Beyond the fine itself, growers caught violating seed laws may face:

• Damaged relationships with local elevators, seed dealers, and breeders
• Possible loss of access to premium varieties or local contracting opportunities
• Greater scrutiny in future audits

Given margins in many wheat and specialty‑crop operations, a $60,000 hit can erase profits for an entire season.

3. Compliance is becoming a competitive factor

As more seed companies and public breeders rely on royalties to fund research, they are increasingly focused on protecting their IP. At the same time, regulators are under pressure to show that PVP and related laws are not toothless. ^[69]

In practical terms, farms and seed businesses that invest in strict compliance—clear contracts, clean recordkeeping, and verification of PVP status—may be better positioned to:

• Access new, higher‑yielding or specialty varieties
• Maintain trusted‑partner status with breeders and seed companies
• Avoid the reputational hit that can come from being publicly named in an enforcement action

A global backdrop: seed piracy, IP, and farmers’ rights

The North Dakota case lands at a moment when seed laws and farmers’ rights are under intense debate worldwide.

Economic losses from “seed piracy”

A 2025 study commissioned by CropLife Brasil and agribusiness consultancy Celeres found that soybean seed piracy in Brazil causes about 10 billion reais (roughly $1.76 billion) in losses every year, affecting around 11% of the country’s soybean area and likely reducing future investments in improved seed varieties. ^[70]

Industry groups point to numbers like these to argue that stronger enforcement—of patents, PVP rights, and certification rules—is essential to keep research pipelines alive and maintain a level playing field for legitimate seed businesses.

Pushback against criminalisation of farmers

At the same time, farmer and civil‑society groups warn that overly punitive seed laws can criminalise traditional practices such as saving and exchanging seed:

• In Kenya, a high court ruling in late November 2025 struck down parts of a 2012 seed law that had allowed authorities to raid community seed banks and subjected farmers to fines of up to 1 million Kenyan shillings and two‑year prison terms for sharing indigenous seed. Judges held that these provisions violated farmers’ rights and were not justified by the goal of combating counterfeit seed.
• Organisations like GRAIN, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and others have documented how seed laws influenced by international agreements such as UPOV 1991 and trade deals may restrict farmers’ ability to save, exchange, and sell seed, especially in the Global South. ^[71]

Critics worry that when penalties become too severe—or when laws treat traditional seed saving like commercial counterfeiting—smallholders and independent breeders are squeezed out, weakening seed diversity and local resilience. ^[72]

North Dakota’s approach is different from Kenya’s in that it targets commercial‑scale violations of PVP‑protected varieties, rather than traditional seed sharing of indigenous varieties. But the debate over where to draw the line between legitimate IP enforcement and over‑criminalisation is clearly global—and growing.

Short‑term outlook: what to expect after the North Dakota fine

As of December 9, 2025, there is no public indication of a parallel civil lawsuit from variety owners or additional criminal charges tied to the Crystal case. The matter is currently framed as an administrative enforcement action by the State Seed Department under existing seed laws and PVP rules. ^[73]

Based on recent legal changes, agency publications, and this latest enforcement step, several near‑term trends are likely:

1. More aggressive auditing in North Dakota
   • Seed regulators have repeatedly signalled that they intend to actively investigate “seed piracy” tips and pursue cases where documentation doesn’t line up. ^[74]
   • Given that the $60,000 fine uses the full statutory maximum per violation, auditors now have a high‑profile example when they warn growers what non‑compliance can cost.
2. Closer integration of state and federal enforcement
   • The Shephard case explicitly references both state and federal seed laws, including PVP provisions. ^[75]
   • Nationally, USDA’s Seed Regulatory and Testing Division has encouraged farmers and breeders to report suspected seed purity, labeling, or PVP violations, suggesting that state‑level actions may increasingly dovetail with federal oversight. ^[76]
3. More attention to contracts and tags at the farm gate
   • With fines now demonstrably high, growers who previously treated PVP language on seed bags as boilerplate are more likely to sit down with their seed dealers, co‑ops, or attorneys and clarify exactly what is and isn’t allowed.
   • Seed businesses will be under pressure to keep spotless records, clean equipment, and airtight labeling, knowing that they may be pulled into investigations if protected seed appears where it shouldn’t. ^[77]

Practical takeaways for farmers and ag professionals

For farmers, agronomists, and seed industry professionals reading about this case on December 9, 2025, the message is blunt but actionable:

• Know the protection status of every variety you plant.
  Check tags, invoices, and variety lists for PVPA, Title V, patent, or license statements, and keep that documentation with your farm records. ^[78]
• Assume that “quiet” seed deals can be traced.
  With mandatory record retention and clearer audit trails, it’s increasingly difficult to hide unlicensed transfers or off‑label use of protected seed. ^[79]
• Treat PVP and patent restrictions as seriously as pesticide labels.
  Violating them can carry comparable or even higher financial penalties than some environmental violations, and can affect your ability to access premium genetics in the future. ^[80]
• When in doubt, ask before you plant.
  State seed departments, extension specialists, and seed company reps would much rather answer a compliance question in January than investigate a seed piracy complaint after harvest.

The Crystal, North Dakota, case doesn’t just close the book on one farmer’s $60,000 mistake. It signals a new enforcement baseline for seed law in one of America’s most important small‑grain states—and adds another chapter to the global struggle to balance innovation, profitability, and farmers’ age‑old practice of saving seed.

References

1. www.valleynewslive.com, 2. www.valleynewslive.com, 3. www.valleynewslive.com, 4. www.valleynewslive.com, 5. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 6. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 7. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 8. www.seed.nd.gov, 9. www.valleynewslive.com, 10. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 11. www.law.cornell.edu, 12. www.law.cornell.edu, 13. www.law.cornell.edu, 14. www.valleynewslive.com, 15. www.law.cornell.edu, 16. www.seed.nd.gov, 17. osuwheat.com, 18. extension.umd.edu, 19. supreme.justia.com, 20. extension.umd.edu, 21. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 22. www.inforum.com, 23. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 24. www.seed.nd.gov, 25. www.valleynewslive.com, 26. www.valleynewslive.com, 27. www.law.cornell.edu, 28. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 29. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 30. www.reuters.com, 31. www.iatp.org, 32. www.centerforfoodsafety.org, 33. www.seed.nd.gov, 34. www.seed.nd.gov, 35. www.seed.nd.gov, 36. www.usda.gov, 37. www.law.cornell.edu, 38. extension.umd.edu, 39. www.law.cornell.edu, 40. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 41. www.valleynewslive.com, 42. www.valleynewslive.com, 43. www.valleynewslive.com, 44. www.valleynewslive.com, 45. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 46. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 47. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 48. www.seed.nd.gov, 49. www.valleynewslive.com, 50. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 51. www.law.cornell.edu, 52. www.law.cornell.edu, 53. www.law.cornell.edu, 54. www.valleynewslive.com, 55. www.law.cornell.edu, 56. www.seed.nd.gov, 57. osuwheat.com, 58. extension.umd.edu, 59. supreme.justia.com, 60. extension.umd.edu, 61. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 62. www.inforum.com, 63. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 64. www.seed.nd.gov, 65. www.valleynewslive.com, 66. www.valleynewslive.com, 67. www.law.cornell.edu, 68. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 69. www.ag.ndsu.edu, 70. www.reuters.com, 71. www.iatp.org, 72. www.centerforfoodsafety.org, 73. www.seed.nd.gov, 74. www.seed.nd.gov, 75. www.seed.nd.gov, 76. www.usda.gov, 77. www.law.cornell.edu, 78. extension.umd.edu, 79. www.law.cornell.edu, 80. www.ag.ndsu.edu