76 



future for a share of the global market, not only in grain sales, but in research in- 

 vestment as well. 



Our best estimates are that the volume of brown-bag sales in the United States 

 are at least one to two times the volume of seed company sales. Given a choice be- 

 tween selling to the U.S. market and selling to a foreign market one-half or one- 

 third the size but in which brown-bag sales are not allowed, it's not even a difficult 

 decision. The resulting volume of sales will be the same in both markets, but a seed 

 company can get a better price and make a better profit in a market where it 

 doesn't have to face unfair competition from brown-bag seed. 



American farmers cannot remain competitive when seed research investment and 

 seed research results are being funneled into markets in other countries. Stated 

 even more strongly, American farmers have high costs for labor, land, and other 

 inputs, and their foreign competitors are highly subsidized. The only way they can 

 stay ahead of their foreign competition is by continued heavy investment in the re- 

 search needed to give them a technological lead. And the way to stimulate that in- 

 vestment in research is not through continued encouragement of farmer-to-farmer 

 sales, but by supporting the rights of seed companies to be the only sellers of the 

 products their research has developed, allowing them to make a profit that justifies 

 doing the research. 



In addition to the farmer-to-farmer sales provisions in the legislation, there are 

 other aspects of the bill which will bring United States law into harmony with the 

 1991 text of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of 

 Plants which we support. 



These other changes include extending the term of plant variety protection slight- 

 ly, from 18 to 20 years for most crop plants. They will also broaden slightly the 

 scope of protection provided so that we have more effective tools to enforce our 

 rights against infringers. Most importantly, they will help to put breeders on an 

 equal footing with one another in terms of how commercial germplasm is used for 

 breeding new varieties. 



In the past, it was not uncommon for some seed companies to take an existing 

 commercial variety, make minor "cosmetic" changes, and reintroduce the variety as 

 its own development without compensation to the company that developed the origi- 

 nal variety and made it an outstanding performer in the first place. This practice 

 has come to be known in the industry as plagiaristic breeding, by analogy to copy- 

 right principles. 



The seed industry is now in agreement that the practice as it exists today is 

 unfair to those who engage in serious, improvement-directed research, and has en- 

 dorsed changes which will have the effect of permitting the practice to continue, but 

 only when the original breeder is appropriately compensated for his or her contribu- 

 tion. We are pleased to tell you today that, in our opinion, the proposed amend- 

 ments to the Plant Variety Protection Act, address these problems. 



Finally, there is one recommendation we have to improve the legislation before 

 this subcommittee. We urge you to make a change to Section 12, which addresses 

 the transition from the current PVP Act to the revised PVP Act. We would like the 

 "upgrade" in protection to become available immediately for existing protected vari- 

 eties. We recommend this only when the owner enforces his or her rights against 

 sales of farmer-saved seed grown on or after the effective date of the act or against 

 essentially derived varieties for which infringing acts first occurred on or after the 

 effective date of the act. With respect to preexisting farmer-saved seed and preexist- 

 ing essentially derived varieties, the rights of the owner of the protected variety 

 should continue to be determined under the current provisions of PVP Act. 



This concludes my prepared remarks. Again, our thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, 

 and to the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity. I'd be pleased to 

 answer any questions you may have. 



STATEMENT OF INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY 



What was the motivation for the Plant Variety Protection Act? 



Historically the bulk of U.S. plant protection laws have served as a mechanism 

 for companies to apply patentlike protection to varieties of plants that in theory 

 could have occurred naturally. Not to mention that these plants, unlike other items 

 of "intellectual property" (e.g., computer programs, artworks, etc.) provide the basis 

 of* our GxistcncG. 



The origin of the PVPA dates back to the 1930s when the first plant patents were 

 issued. Since that time, stricter international plant protection treaties were used as 



