78 



its sales. The 'scuffle' between Pioneer and Holden is only a symptom of 

 this competition disease. The question, though, is price and the effect this 

 atmosphere will have on price. 



Million dollar settlements find their way to the pocketbooks of the end 

 users. Farmers end up paying for agricultural lawsuits, as automobile driv- 

 ers pay for auto accident judgments. With more disputes over the property 

 rights of plants, farmers will find higher seed prices facing them. I just 

 don't believe it is possible for the industry to absorb extreme costs associat- 

 ed with large corporations suing each other over who owns what. 



The real collision, however, is the addition of the multinational corpora- 

 tions into the seed business and their expectation of profits from patented 

 plants. The present use of licenses, royalties, surcharges and the Plant Va- 

 riety Protection Act all translate to higher seed prices. Why would these 

 big players buy up seed companies and invest millions into genetic engi- 

 neering if they did not expect to recoup their investment? Seed prices could 

 escalate rapidly under this reality, all the while the commodity markets act 

 as if we are in the 1940s. This is where the head-on collision occurs. How 

 can an end product sold on a commodity basis support a fast-changing, 

 high-dollar research game where the players demand profits. This puts the 

 farmer in an ever-increasing bind of higher seed prices. 



A 'scuffle?' Hardly, this is a game being played for keeps with extreme pos- 

 sibilities for all players. 



Additionally, all three of the major national farm organizations oppose further 

 plant variety restrictions. The American Farm Bureau Federation, which is present- 

 ing testimony under a separate cover, has serious reservations regarding the farm- 

 er's exemption, conditioning of seed and the definitions comprising the concept of 

 essentially derived seed varieties. 



The National Farmers Organization has issued two statements, the first from Tim 

 Ennis, assistant director of NFO's grain department: 



We would only support granting patents and other forms of protection to 

 the companies that sell crop seeds to farmers, when farmers are given equi- 

 table price supports based upon the cost of production within this economy. 

 U.S. producers should not be forced to pay for companies' opportunities to 

 make profits without being given an opportunity to make profits them- 

 selves. 



The second from Thayne Cozart, NFO communications director: 



Our major concern is that undue protection of plant varieties will lead to 

 the market concentration of seed companies. 



The future varieties affected by this legislation will be grown under con- 

 tract and won't go into the mainstream market. This will essentially result 

 in the majority of producers being unable to affect the price that they raise 

 these crops under. It will also leave little choice for producers as to which 

 varieties they grow as it will tend to reduce the development of public vari- 

 eties through the Land Grant System. 



We believe seed companies deserve some protection at least to the point 

 where they can recoup their investment in research and development. 

 Moreover, we're not arbitrarily opposed to the development of trait-specific 

 varieties, because of the potential for societal benefits from them. 



However, there must be some restraint in how long a patent will last and 

 the lengths to which a company can go to protect a valuable variety. The 

 public's access to the genetic pool must be maintained. S. 1406 and UPOV 

 do not provide a middle ground for the development of new varieties and 

 the maintenance of the public's access to the gene pool. 



The Institute for Agricultural Biodiversity does not deny companies the right to 

 make a reasonable profit. But before near-guarantees of profits are granted by the 

 United States to seed companies operating within its borders, we believe those com- 

 panies should be the subject of a General Accounting Office audit to evaluate 

 whether farmers and consumers will actually benefit from the strengthening of the 

 Plant Variety Protection Act. 



