56 



each patent should contain a specific clause allowing use of cross- 

 ing. However, this clause is not legislated, thus difficult to enforce. 

 The PVPA is the only form of intellectual property rights that ex- 

 plicitly provides a research exemption, hence, germplasm exchange. 



In conclusion, we have intellectual property rights for the potato 

 cultivars today. However, utility patents are not an adequate form 

 of protection in most cases. Besides the cost to submit a claim, 

 there is no research exemption clause. Therefore, by default, utility 

 patents sequester germplasm exchange. 



The inclusion of the potato into the Plant Patent Act is not the 

 best protection, either, for potato breeding. It does not provide an 

 adequate level of protection, lacks the essential derivation concept, 

 requires lawyers for submission of a claim, and has no research ex- 

 emption. 



The Potato Association of America and the National Potato Coun- 

 cil support the form of intellectual property rights for plants out- 

 lined in the 1991 UPOV convention. The Potato Association of 

 America and National Potato Council also advocate the inclusion of 

 the potato in the PVPA under the revisions required by the 1991 

 UPOV treaty. This form of protection does not require the use of 

 lawyers to obtain protection, is less costly and affords an adequate 

 level of breeder's rights while explicitly legislating a research ex- 

 emption for breeding. 



If potatoes are included in the Plant Variety Protection Act, po- 

 tato breeders then have adequate protection for potato germplasm 

 which is comparable to other UPOV countries which conduct potato 

 breeding. Moreover, we will have a form of protection that puts us 

 on par with biotechnologists' means to protect their product, which 

 should promote germplasm exchange between these two groups. 



Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Douches appears at the conclu- 

 sion of the hearing.] 



Mr. Stenholm. Thank you. 



Next Ms. Hope Shand, director of research, Rural Advancement 

 Foundation International, Pittsboro, North Carolina. 



STATEMENT OF HOPE J. SHAND, DIRECTOR, RESEARCH, 

 RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL-USA 



Ms. Shand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



My name is Hope Shand. I represent the Rural Advancement 

 Foundation International — RAFI — based in Pittsboro, North Caro- 

 lina. 



RAFI is a private, nonprofit organization that works on the prob- 

 lem of the loss of genetic diversity in agriculture. We are concerned 

 about the impact of plant intellectual property rights on U.S. agri- 

 culture and world food security. 



I will abbreviate my comments, but I request that my full state- 

 ment be submitted for the record. 



Mr. Stenholm. Without objection. 



Ms. Shand. RAFI believes that the newly revised UPOV conven- 

 tion strengthens the right of plant breeders at the expense of farm- 

 ers. The PVPA was designed to give plant breeders adequate incen- 

 tives to conduct research and develop new plant varieties by grant- 

 ing them limited monopoly rights. 



