51 



We also believe that the PVPA and other forms of plant intellec- 

 tual property rights will unintentionally encourage and exacerbate 

 problems of crop genetic erosion in the Third World. In recent his- 

 tory, the single greatest cause of crop genetic erosion in Third 

 World centers of diversity has been the introduction of new uni- 

 form cultivars, commercial varieties, that replace farmers' tradi- 

 tional varieties. The strengthening of plant breeders' rights inter- 

 nationally will further accelerate genetic erosion in Third World 

 centers of diversity. 



We also oppose the extension of proprietary protection to har- 

 vested materials. End-product protection would give a seed compa- 

 ny the legal right, for example, to prevent food aid shipments that 

 may contain protected seed from going to a Third World country 

 that does not recognize plant breeders' rights. 



This is a particularly dramatic example, I am aware of that, but 

 this measure will compel many developing countries to adopt plant 

 breeders' rights that may be entirely inappropriate for their level 

 of development or for their needs. We believe that extension of 

 breeders' rights legislation in developing nations is likely to con- 

 tribute to genetic erosion, and again, it may jeopardize future con- 

 servation and exchange of these vital resources. 



In conclusion, RAFI urges Members of Congress to reexamine 

 the PVPA within a broader context and to carefully consider the 

 social and economic implications of plant breeders' rights and 

 other forms of intellectual property rights on farmers, plant breed- 

 ing and germplasm activities, and future access to and exchange of 

 plant genetic resources, both domestically and internationally. 



We urge Congress to preserve the farmers' exemption. We do not 

 support illegal brown-bagging of proprietary seed, and we acknowl- 

 edge that there have been some abuses. However, current trends in 

 life patenting, the extension of intellectual property rights to 

 plants, animals, genes, and other biological products will ultimate- 

 ly diminish the U.S. farmer's role to little more than a renter of 

 germplasm, a new class of sharecropper, if you will. 



We believe that there is a fundamental difference when you are 

 talking about intellectual property protection for books and light 

 bulbs and mouse traps than there is for food and food products. 



No action should be taken to eliminate the farmer's right to save 

 proprietary seed for replanting on his or her own holdings or to 

 sell limited quantities of seed to his or her neighbor. 



Finally, we believe that the U.S. should decline to ratify the 1991 

 UPOV treaty pending further study and a comprehensive policy 

 review. 



Thank you very much. 



[The prepared statement of Ms. Shand follows:] 



Prepared Statement of Hope Shand, Research Director, Rural Advancement 

 Foundation International, Pittsboro, NC 



My name is Hope Shand. I am Research Director of the Rural Advancement 

 Foundation International-USA (RAFI), based in Pittsboro, North Carolina. RAFI is 

 a private, nonprofit organization that is dedicated to the preservation of family 

 farms, the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, and the so- 

 cially responsible use of new technologies. RAFI has a long history of work on the 

 problem of the loss of genetic diversity in agriculture, and we are increasingly con- 



