54 



breeders' rights in developing nations, will further accelerate genetic erosion in 

 Third World centers of diversity. 



While the seed industry has been reluctant to admit the connection between plant 

 breeders' rights and the loss of genetic diversity, the Keystone Dialogue on Plant 

 Genetic Resources (which included seed industry representatives), made blunt criti- 

 cisms of plant breeders' rights in this regard: 



At the level of individual plant species of agronomic value, current intellec- 

 tual property rights systems reinforce the tendency of plant breeding to de- 

 crease genetic diversity. These systems encourage the production and dis- 

 semination of new varieties which often replace the more diverse landraces 

 and local crops * * commercial research tends to focus on a limited 

 number of crops with large acreage or with a high profitability of seed 

 sales. Moreover, the existing uniformity requirement to obtain Plant Breed- 

 ers' Rights ensure a high degree of genetic uniformity within a variety. The 

 protected uniform variety * * * has the potential to displace more geneti- 

 cally diverse landraces. (The Keystone International Dialogue Series of 

 Plant Genetic Resources, 1991:14.) 



The Implications of Extending Proprietary Protection to Harvested Materials 



One of the proposed changes embodied in S. 1406 would extend proprietary protec- 

 tion to harvested materials of protected varieties. This means, for example, that 

 grain grown from protected seed, or any other end product that is produced from 

 proprietary seed, would be protected by the PVPA. This gives the corporate breeder 

 the power to restrict imports and exports of protected varieties and their products if 

 that product is produced using seed without authorization. Seed companies could, 

 for example, restrict imports into a UPOV-governed country of farm products 

 coming from countries that do not recognize breeders' rights. End-product protection 

 would also give a seed company the legal right to prevent food aid shipments that 

 may contain protected seed from going to a Third World country that does not rec- 

 ognize plant breeders' rights. 



We urge Members of Congress to examine closely the broader implications and 

 potentially negative impacts of such a change. The seed industry favors the exten- 

 sion of PVPA protection to harvested materials (under UPOV) because this measure 

 would compel many developing nations to adopt plant breeders' rights. 



Historically, UPOV's member states do include developing nations. In reality, few 

 Third World countries have the infrastructure to enforce breeders' rights and other 

 forms of plant intellectual property rights. Given the threat of trade retaliation, 

 however, Third World nations are now under tremendous pressure to adopt plant 

 breeders' rights. At the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotia- 

 tions in Geneva, for instance, proposals put forth by the United States and other 

 industrialized countries place extraordinary pressure on developing nations to adopt 

 plant breeders' rights as a minimum system of patent protection. As noted above, 

 extension of breeders' rights legislation in developing nations is likely to contribute 

 to crop genetic erosion. It may also jeopardize future conservation and exchange of 

 plant genetic resources. 



Conclusion 



Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. We hope that 

 you will use this hearing as a reference point for further debate and discussion on 

 this issue, prior to taking further action on S. 1406. 



Proposed amendments to the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act have implications 

 far beyond our borders. What may, at first glance, appear to be an innocuous issue, 

 is extraordinarily complex and controversial. There is a great deal of uncertainty, as 

 well as conflict, regarding the potential impacts of both plant breeders' rights and 

 plant patenting. In addition, new genetic technologies are being developed much 

 faster than society can develop socially responsible policies to assimilate them. 



RAFI urges Members of Congress to reexamine the Plant Variety Protection Act 

 within a broader context, and to carefully consider the social and economic implica- 

 tions of plant intellectual property rights for farmers, plant breeding and germ- 

 plasm activities, and future access to and exchange of plant genetic resources, both 

 domestically and internationally. 



A review of the 23-year history of the Plant Variety Protection Act reveals that 

 the act itself and later amendments were enacted into law without ever experienc- 

 ing a recorded vote. The intent of Congress in passing the Plant Variety Protection 

 Act was "to promote progress in agriculture in the public interest." As custodians of 

 the public interest, we urge Congress to conduct a comprehensive policy review of 



