77 



"(3) Support the present provision which allows a farmer to save 

 seed for use on all the land that he or she farms; and 



"(4) Support a provision to allow growers of seed varieties 

 protected under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) to sell the 

 seed according to local commercial law if the seed company fails to 

 abide by the grower contract. 



"We oppose expansion of breeders' rights through incorporation of 

 the concept of "essentially derived varieties" (as delineated by the 

 1991 International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of 

 Plants) into the scope of protection afforded by the PVPA." 



American farmers have a strong vested interest in the advancement of 

 genetic development through traditional breeding programs and through new 

 technologies including genetic engineering. Plagiaristic breeding practices and 

 inequalities in the protection afforded breeders and geneticists have been 

 detrimental to such genetic advancement. AFBF supports extension of intellectual 

 property right protection through the concept of "essentially derived varieties", but 

 is concerned that an inappropriate definition of what constitutes an "essentially 

 derived variety" could hinder progress in genetic advancement. 



The 1991 UPOV agreement incorporates a fairly vague, but potentially 

 restrictive, definition of "essentially derived varieties." Dr. Bruce Hunter of Ciba 

 Seeds, and a member of the "Minimum Distance Committee" of the American Seed 

 Trade Association stated in a 1993 address to an intellectual property rights 

 symposium on the protection of plant materials that: 



"It should also be noted that the Convention (referring to the 1991 

 UPOV) has deliberately not defined in detail the concept of 

 'Essentially Derived' in order to allow countries and organizations the 

 opportunity to have considerable input into the interpretation and 

 operation of this new concept." 



H.R. 2927 uses the 1991 UPOV language to define "essentially derived." We 

 believe the proposed definition is sufficiently vague and undefined and may 

 unduly limit second generation innovation. The current definition places no limit 

 on the extent of expression of essential characteristics which are required for a 

 variety to qualify as essentially derived. Neither does it define what is meant by 

 essential characteristics. 



AFBF suggests the following changes to H.R. 2927 regarding Section 41, 

 Definitions and Rules Construction, specifically the definition of essentially 

 derived variety (Section 41 Number (3) (A)). 



