53 



in regard to this issue, we believe it is to carefully review the original intent of Con- 

 gress in preserving and protecting the farmer's right to save seed and to sell limited 

 quantities to his or her neighbor. 



Will U.S. Failure to Ratify the 1991 UPOV Treaty Make the U.S. Seed Industry Less 

 Competitive In the World Market? 

 While proponents of S. 1406 argue that it is necessary for the U.S. to conform to 

 the newly revised UPOV treaty, it is important to note that no other nation has 

 ratified the 1991 treaty to date. In addition, the United States will suffer no penal- 

 ties by declining to adhere to the 1991 UPOV treaty. If the United States declines to 

 become a party to the new convention, it will continue as a member of UPOV ad- 

 hering to the provisions of the 1978 convention. According to Rob Robinson of the 

 American Seed Trade Association's Intellectual Property Rights Committee, in the 

 event that the United States does not become a party to the new UPOV convention, 

 U.S. breeders would not benefit from the stronger breeders' rights contained in the 

 new convention within the United States, but they would qualify for these rights in 

 any other UPOV member country which is a party to the new convention. 



International Controversy Over Control and Ownership of Plant Genetic Resources 

 Could Jeopardize Future Access to and Exchange of Crop Genetic Resources 



All major food crops, the staple crops grown and consumed by the vast majority of 

 the world's population, have their origins and centers of diversity in the tropics and 

 subtropics of the developing world. 



The subject of crop genetic diversity assumes utmost urgency today because we 

 are losing biological resources at an unprecedented rate. The Food and Agriculture 

 Organization of the United Nations estimates that, since the beginning of this cen- 

 tury, about 75 percent of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost. 



Erosion of crop genetic diversity (the loss of genetic diversity through extinction) 

 threatens the existence and stability of our food supply. This is because the diversi- 

 ty found in developing countries is vital for the maintenance and improvement of 

 new crop varieties. To maintain pest and disease resistance in our major food crops, 

 for instance, or to develop other needed traits like drought tolerance or improved 

 flavor, plant breeders constantly require fresh infusions of genes from the farms, 

 forests and fields of the developing world. The high yielding, elite cultivars of 

 modern agriculture depend on a steady stream of new, exotic germplasm. The U.S. 

 Government estimates that a 1-percent gain in crop productivity due to the use of in- 

 troduced germplasm means a $1 billion dollar benefit to the American economy. 



In the rush to promote exclusive mechanisms for rewarding plant breeders and 

 developers of new agricultural biotechnologies, there has been little or no consider- 

 ation for the impact of intellectual property rights on the future conservation and 

 exchange of biological resources. 



The danger is that intellectual property rights, without reciprocal benefits and 

 meaningful compensation for developing nations, could set up formidable barriers to 

 access to the world's genetic resources. In the wake of new plant patenting propos- 

 als, and strengthening of breeders' rights, developing nations are questioning the 

 notion of full and free access to their biological resources. Why, they ask, are pat- 

 ented seeds, ultimately of Third World origin, bringing profits to multinational seed 

 corporations without corresponding compensation for the developing world? 



Although we hear little about this controversy in the United States, the issue is 

 extremely controversial in the developing world. Consider, for example, the recent 

 actions of over 1,000 angry farmers who ransacked a local Cargill office in Banga- 

 lore, India to protest plant intellectual property rights currently under negotiation 

 at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in Geneva. These farmers 

 are angry because they don't want to pay royalties on seeds and other products that 

 they believe were developed using their own genetic resources and knowledge. 



International tension over ownership and control of genetic resources will intensi- 

 fy if the United States ratifies an international treaty that does not guarantee the 

 right of farmers to save seed. Again, the danger is that developing nations will re- 

 strict future access to genetic resources, the cornerstone of modern plant breeding. 



The PVPA and Other Forms of Plant Intellectual Property Rights Will Unintention- 

 ally Encourage and Exacerbate Problems of Crop Genetic Erosion 

 Genetic erosion is an unintended consequence of modern plant breeding. To the 

 extent that a seed company produces a successful variety, it can displace genetic 

 material needed for future breeding programs. Historically, the single greatest 

 cause of crop genetic erosion in Third World centers of diversity has been the intro- 

 duction of new, uniform cultivars that replace farmers' traditional varieties. The 

 strengthening of plant breeders' rights internationally, and the promotion of plant 



