15 



Currently, Mr. Chairman, the 1970 PVP Act qualifies a variety for protection if it 

 varies in one or more characteristics from an existing variety. This allows a prolif- 

 eration of new protected varieties which differ from an existing variety by only 

 small differences such as flower color. These varieties offer nothing extra to a pro- 

 ducer and result in companies riding into the market on the coattails of their com- 

 petitors. In doing so, one company capitalizes on the research conducted by another 

 company by plagiarizing that company's varieties. 



The principle of dependence would not change the criteria for what qualifies a 

 variety for protection, but if the genetic differences did not meet certain standards, 

 it could not be commercialized without permission of the owner of the variety from 

 which it was derived. 



Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer one final point on the concept of essentially de- 

 rived. Many outside of the seed industry are concerned over this new and technical 

 term. Members of the seed industry, and especially the ASTA membership, recog- 

 nize that this is an internal issue. The issue of dependency does not affect the 

 farmer. And, while there are ongoing discussions and debate on defining parameters 

 for essentially derived varieties, American farmers can rest assured that the indus- 

 try's commitment to providing new and improved varieties is unyielding and is and 

 will remain apart from the issue of essentially derived. 



Recognition of the Existence of Farm-Saved Seed 



Although the current PVP Act contains a saved-seed provision, the existing 

 UPOV Conventions have no such provision. The new convention simply states that 

 a contracting party, within reasonable limits and subject to the safeguarding of the 

 legitimate interests of the breeder, restrict the breeder's right in relation to any va- 

 riety in order to permit farmers to use for propagating purposes, on their own hold- 

 ings, the product of the harvest for which they have obtained by planting, on their 

 own holdings, the protected variety or an essentially derived variety. "Holdings" are 

 considered to be land owned, rented, or leased by a farmer. 



It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that the farm-saved seed provision in the new 

 convention does not permit the selling of farm-saved seed. In order to be in full com- 

 pliance with the convention, S. 1406 contains a provision that stipulates that sales 

 of protected varieties of seed are dependent on permission granted by the owner of 

 the protected variety. 



Mr. Chairman, it has become increasingly apparent that of all the issues before 

 this subcommittee, the most widely discussed component of S. 1406 has centered on 

 this provision. The sale of farm-saved seed has led to the abandonment of research 

 programs on certain crops by seed companies because of an inability to compete 

 with their own varieties. Time considerations preclude me from going into graphic 

 detail of the casualties resulting from farm-saved sales. Seed companies large and 

 small alike have restructured, curtailed, and in the most drastic of examples, aban- 

 doned major research programs. All of these actions illustrate a painful, but neces- 

 sary recognition by seed companies of an inability to compete with farmers capital- 

 izing on substantial financial, human, and research commitments. 



A surprising few believe that a variety granted a PVP certificate is just that — a 

 PVP certificate. The seed industry, however, Mr. Chairman, views the PVP certifi- 

 cate as a "patentlike" license that ensures protection and a recognition of develop- 

 ment worthy of expected rights and privilege. The ASTA fully supports the tradi- 

 tion and spirit of the crop exemption. We do not, however, believe that breeders, 

 whether public or private, individual or university, have to expect or accept any- 

 thing less than full protection. The UPOV Convention permits sales contingent on 

 the permission of the owner of the protected variety. This standard is in keeping 

 with the intent of the PVP certificate and is, most importantly, fair and consistent 

 to those who assume the risk and investment. 



While S. 1406 will provide this much needed protection to the developer, the bene- 

 fit extends to the farmer. Farmers need to know that the industry that provides 

 them with the single most important component in agriculture is firmly committed 

 to bringing to the market a steady stream of improved and enhanced seed. Without 

 newer and improved varieties, American farmers cannot compete with our competi- 

 tors overseas. If our competitors recognize the value and necessity of protecting 

 breeders' rights and we, in turn, fail to do so, our ability to continue dominating 

 agricultural markets will be in serious jeopardy. S. 1406 seeks to better position 

 American agriculture by giving those who develop the seed protection and those 

 who utilize the seed the selection they have come to know and expect. 



Mr. Chairman, these changes as reflected in S. 1406 are necessary for the contin- 

 ued health and stability of American agriculture. Acceptance and adherence to the 

 1991 UPOV Convention is in the best interest of all of us who are committed to the 



