Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1380, 1390 (5th Cir. 1977); Marshall v. Gulf and Western Industries, Inc., 552 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1977). Indeed, Gulf and Western, holding that the agricultural exemption does not apply to tomato packing facilities that processed tomatoes grown by independent farmers, is controlling here. As in Gulf and Western, the processing activities here are subject to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act since they are independent of the contract growers’ activity and nonagricultural in nature. REVERSED. 1 . This provision is to be read in parallel with the agricultural exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bayside Enterprises v. NLRB, 97 S.Ct. 576, 578, 97 S.Ct. 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 494 (1977). 2 . Defendant gains no support from Abbott Farms v. NLRB, 487 F.2d 904 (5th Cir. 1973)  in view of the Supreme Court’s statement in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence of one possible burglary before incident at issue insufficient to demonstrate prior criminal activity
B. holding that abbotts feedmill operation was an agricultural activity because incident to a poultry raising venture
C. holding that raising a complaint about a violation of an internal policy is not considered protected activity
D. holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal
E. holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.