58 



Proposed amendments to the PVPA have implications far beyond 

 our borders. Internationally, there is a great deal of controversy 

 over control and ownership of plant genetic resources. Plant genetic 

 diversity found mainly in the tropics and subtropics of the develop- 

 ing world is vital for the maintenance and improvement of new 

 crop varieties. Without continuous access to new exotic germplasm, 

 commercial plant breeding would grind to a halt. 



Unfortunately, in the rush to promote exclusive mechanisms for 

 rewarding plant breeders, there has been little or no consideration 

 for the impact of plant intellectual property rights on the future 

 conservation and exchange of genetic resources. In the wake of new 

 plant patenting proposals and strengthening of breeder's rights, de- 

 veloping nations are questioning the notion of full and free access 

 to their biological resources. They are asking why is it that pat- 

 ented seeds, ultimately, of Third World origin are bringing profits 

 to seed companies without corresponding compensation for the de- 

 veloping world? 



The ultimate danger is that the exchange of genetic material and 

 information which is so vital for food security as well as commer- 

 cial plant breeding and new biotechnologies will be severely con- 

 stricted, undermining efforts to conserve plant genetic diversity 

 and guarantee access to it. 



We don't hear much about this issue here in the United States, 

 but it is an extremely hot topic in the rest of the world. Consider 

 recent events in India where over 500,000 farmers have dem- 

 onstrated to protest plant intellectual property rights. These farm- 

 ers are angry because they don't want to pay royalties on seeds 

 that they believe were developed using their own genetic resources 

 and knowledge. 



We believe that international tension over ownership and control 

 of genetic resources will intensify if the United States ratifies an 

 international treaty that does not guarantee the right of farmers 

 to save seed. Again, the danger is that developing nations will re- 

 strict future access to genetic resources, the cornerstone of modern 

 plant breeding. 



In conclusion, RAFI urges Members of this subcommittee to post- 

 pone action on H.R. 2927. We urge you to preserve the farmer's ex- 

 emption. We believe that the United States should decline to ratify 

 the 1991 UPOV treaty pending further study and a comprehensive 

 review of these issues. 



Thank you very much for your consideration. 



[The prepared statement of Ms. Shand appears at the conclusion 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Stenholm. Thank you. Next, Dr. Richard Lower, University 

 of Wisconsin. 



STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. LOWER, ASSOCIATE DEAN, COL- 

 LEGE OF AGRICULTURAL LIFE SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF 

 WISCONSIN-MADISON, ON BEHALF OF THE EXPERIMENT 

 STATION COMMITTEE, OPERATIONS PLANNING, NATIONAL 

 ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT 

 COLLEGES 



Mr. Lower. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. 



