44 



tection to allow seed developers the ability to recover the 

 costs of research and development of seeds; two, support 

 restricting the sales of protected varieties, except for inci- 

 dental sales, without the permission of the owner; three, 

 support the present provision which allows a farmer to 

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

 four, support a provision to allow growers of seed varieties 

 protected under the Plant Variety Protection Act to sell 

 the seed according to local commercial law if the seed com- 

 pany fails to abide by the grower contract. 



We oppose the expansion of breeders' rights through incor- 

 poration of the concept of 'essentially derived varieties' (as 

 delineated by the 1991 UPOV) into the scope of protection 

 afforded by the PVPA. 



I will not read the entire policy of the Farm Bureau, but I will 

 highlight the key provisions and how they relate to S. 1406. 



American farmers have a strong vested interest in the advance- 

 ment of genetic development through traditional breeding pro- 

 grams and through new technologies, including genetic engineer- 

 ing. Plagiaristic breeding practices and inequalities in the protec- 

 tion 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 con- 

 cerned that an inappropriate definition of what constitutes an es- 

 sentially derived variety could hinder progress in genetic advance- 

 ment. 



The 1991 UPOV agreement incorporates a fairly vague but po- 

 tentially restrictive definition of essentially derived varieties. Dr. 

 Bruce Hunter of Ciba Seeds and a member of the Minimum Dis- 

 tance 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 de- 

 fined 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." 



S. 1406 uses the 1991 UPOV language to define "essentially de- 

 rived." We believe that the proposed definition is sufficiently vague 

 and undefined that it may unduly limit second generation innova- 

 tion. The current definition places no limit on the extent of expres- 

 sion 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 S. 1406 regarding Sec- 

 tion 41, Definitions and Rules Construction, specifically the defini- 

 tion of essentially derived variety. 



Subparagraph (iii) would be amended to require virtually all the 

 "essential characteristics that result from the genotype or combina- 

 tion of genotypes of the initial variety." 



In addition, we would suggest adding to Subparagraph (iii) the 

 following language: 



