49 



1. The PVPA protected varieties sold by the seed companies are insignificant vari- 

 ations or the exact variety of seed developed in State research centers using 

 public funding. These centers have also been financed by an excise tax on farm- 

 ers! 



2. In a book entitled "Altered Harvest" it is pointed out that Virginia Knauer, 

 President Nixon's Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs, recommended in 1970 

 that President Nixon veto the PVPA. She said there was no evidence that the 

 seed companies needed the protection given by the act. She added that the most 

 likely results would be increased prices to consumers, increased taxes to taxpay- 

 ers, and increased revenues to plant breeders. 



3. There is still no evidence that seed companies need any more protection than 

 that given by the PVPA. Their whole case seems to be the statement that Pioneer 

 discontinued selling one variety of Wheat. What the seed companies don't tell us 

 is that the variety Pioneer discontinued had been on the market for many years 

 and had been replaced by new and better varieties. With or without brownbag 

 sales, Pioneer would probably have discontinued that variety of wheat. In addi- 

 tion, the seed companies omit the fact that 30 new companies have entered the 

 seed market in the last 10 years— despite the farmers' exemption — and the indus- 

 try has been enormously profitable. 



4. Granting seed companies a virtual monopoly on their registered varieties will 

 cause seed prices to go through the roof. In Europe, where farmers are denied the 

 right to replant seeds and sell them to other farmers, seed costs up to seven times 

 what it costs American farmers. 



5. Granting seed companies a monopoly will give them windfall profits on the varie- 

 ties that they now license from State agencies. Seed companies have paid a 

 modest royalty on these seeds; when they can double the price of the seed to the 

 American farmer and consumer, they will realize profits never bargained for 

 when they licensed the variety from State agencies. 



6. Granting seed companies a monopoly on protected varieties will inevitably lead 

 to a restriction on seed varieties and a decrease in biodiversity. Many seed geneti- 

 cists have expressed their deep concern that this could threaten our Nation's food 

 supply if a dominant variety becomes susceptible to a virus or disease. 



7. And perhaps most important, allowing farmers to sell their saved seed will have 

 no greater impact on seed companies than allowing farmers to save their own 

 seed for replanting. 



Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, Denny and I lost our entire 

 corn crop this year because of flooding in Iowa. Just days ago we also lost most of 

 our remaining soy bean crop because of the early frost. I do not know where we will 

 find money to buy seed for next year. I do know if seed costs a multiple of what it 

 does now, and we can't buy seed from other farmers, our situation will be hopeless. 

 Yet, this is what we can expect if Senator Kerrey's proposed amendments to the 

 PVPA are passed by Congress. 



I am convinced if this subcommittee carefully considers all of the issues, it will 

 conclude that the centuries-old right of farmers to sell seed which they grow to 

 other farmers must be preserved. The only thing that should be done is to clarify 

 the language of the farmers' exemption so that other farmers will not have to suffer 

 what my husband and I have suffered. 



Thank you for listening. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may 

 have. 



Senator Kerrey. The next and last witness is Ms. Hope Shand, 

 Research Director for the Rural Advancement Foundation Interna- 

 tional, Pittsboro, North Carolina. 



STATEMENT OF HOPE J. SHAND, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, RURAL 

 ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL, PITTSBORO, NC 



Ms. Shand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



My name is Hope Shand. I represent the Rural Advancement 

 Foundation International, based in Pittsboro, North Carolina. We 

 are a private, nonprofit organization and we work on the problem 

 of the loss of genetic diversity in agriculture. We are increasingly 

 concerned about the impact of plant intellectual property rights on 

 U.S. agriculture and world food security. 



