80 



drought conditions like those of 1988 and those found this year in the U.S. South- 

 east. Farmers whose grain contains high levels of aflatoxin cannot sell their grain 

 on the market. Because of the lack of heat-tolerant corn germplasm left in the cor- 

 porate, USDA and land-grant systems, USDA researchers working with those of 

 Ciba-Geigy are having to obtain germplasm from Native Americans in the U.S. 

 Southwest. 



Further examples of irresponsibility exist in the private sector with the emphasis 

 on hybridizing crops such as canola and wheat at the expense of existing varieties. 

 This is also apparent in the development of herbicide-resistant and herbicide-toler- 

 ant varieties and hybrids at the expense of improving the natural defenses and 

 abilities of existing varieties and hybrids, a practice which blatantly flies in the face 

 of sustainable, long-term agriculture. 



Clearly, neither the private nor public sectors has been responsible when it comes 

 to preserving the genetic diversity and safety of our food system. 



Won 't this lack of diversity be solved with the advent of biotech? 



If there was ever a financial incentive for seed companies to maintain diversity, it 

 is with hybrid corn. As we have seen with Southern Corn Leaf Blight and aflatoxin, 

 this has not been the case. Based on past disregard for genetic diversity, we cannot 

 conclude that seed companies' actions will change with genetically engineered varie- 

 ties of soybeans and other crops. At present, biotech seeds are still years away. So, 

 diversity cannot yet be made, it must be found and preserved. 



How do we ensure diversity and in turn safety? 



We can ensure safety by requiring accountability. We cannot continue to issue 

 certificates for trivial genetic differences such as flower color that do not benefit so- 

 ciety as a whole. We cannot allow companies or public institutions the right to lock 

 up our food supply without first proving their responsibleness. 



Until then, we can preserve the farmer's exemption as a fail-safe to ensure that 

 diversity is maintained. Farmers should be allowed to save back enough seed to 

 plant up to six times their acreage. Additionally, both public and private companies 

 should be required to preserve and reveal varieties and lines, regardless of short- 

 term economic viability, to ensure long-term genetic prosperity. 



This will prevent us from being in the position of the Europeans who are not al- 

 lowed to save seed. 



But won't such action prevent us from ratifying the new UPOV treaty? 



As of this date, NO country has ratified UPOV since the signing 2 years ago. 

 Canada took nearly two decades to ratify the first UPOV. There is no rush to 

 comply with the treaty and legally we are not bound to comply by our signing. 



Further, current PVPA laws are not hindering the introduction of new varieties, 

 as seed companies are expected to apply for a record number of certificates by the 

 end of this year. This begs the question of why companies are so actively producing 

 new varieties while simultaneously complaining of losing money on them? Curious- 

 ly, seed companies cannot distinguish between sales losses from saved seed (which 

 they claim not to mind) and seed sold to other farmers by farmers (which they claim 

 they do mind). Industry leader Pioneer, as evidenced by its statements on sales 

 losses of Hard Red Winter wheat in Kansas, lumps both categories together. Of 

 course, the company also names those sales losses as the reason it abandoned its 

 hard red wheat research program. This, despite the fact that the research was pri- 

 marily geared toward developing patentable wheat hybrids, not the varieties farm- 

 ers were saving and exchanging. Do companies like Pioneer not mind granting 

 farmers a saved seed exemption on PVPA only to lobby to have it removed under 

 GATT and NAFTA? 



Perhaps more so than S. 1406, the 1991 UPOV ought to be reexamined and public- 

 ly debated. UPOV, like GATT and NAFTA sets a precedent for farmers to be robbed 

 of the rights they have had since the first seed was planted. It was, afterall, the 

 right to save seed and exchange seed that allowed the first seeds to be planted. 



Our neighbor, Mexico, has negotiated an exemption in NAFTA that does not re- 

 quire it to alter its plant variety protection laws. Surely, the U.S. Government can 

 and should do the same for its farmers, beginning with PVPA and UPOV. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Busch, L., Burkhardt, J. and Lacy, W.B. (1989). Culture and care: ethical policy di- 

 mensions of germplasm conservation. In L. Knutson and A.K. Stoner (Eds.), Biotic 

 Diversity and Germplasm Preservation, Global Imperatives, (pp. 43-62). Dordecht, 

 The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 



