81 



Doyle, Jack. (1985). Altered harvest: agriculture, genetics and the fate of the world 

 food supply. New York: Viking Penguin, Inc. 



Fowler, C. and Mooney P. (1990). Shattering: food, politics, and the loss of genetic 

 diversity. Tuscon, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. 



Hamilton, Neil D. (1992). Feeding our future: six philosophical issues shaping agri- 

 cultural law (White Paper No. 92-3). DesMoines: Drake University, Agricultural 

 Law Center. 



Henkes, Rollie. (1992). Tommorow's seeds: patent pending. The Furrow, 97, 10-13. 



Kloppenburg, J.R., Jr. and Kleinman, D.L. (1987). The plant germplasm controversy. 

 BioScience, 3?(S), 190-198, 217-218. 



Kloppenburg, J.R., Jr. (1988). First the seed: the political economy of plant biotech- 

 nology, 1492-2000. (1st. ed.) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 



Kloppenburg, J.R., Jr. (1989). Biopesticides and economic democracy. In J.F. Mac- 

 Donald (Ed.), Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture: Policy Alternatives 

 (NABC Report No. 1, pp. 75-81). Ithaca, New York: National Agricultural Biotech- 

 nology Council. 



Kloppenburg, J.R., Jr. (1991). Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural 

 science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology, 56(A), 

 519-548. 



Kloppenburg, J.R., Jr. (1991). Alternative agriculture and the new biotechnologies. 

 Science as Culture, 2(13, Pt. 4), 482-506. 



Kloppenburg, J.R., Jr. (1992). Science in agriculture: a reply to Molnar, Duffy, Cum- 

 mins, and Van Santen and to Flora. Rural Sociology, 57(1), 98-107. 



National Research Council. (1972). Genetic vulnerability of major crops. Washington, 

 DC: National Academy of Sciences. 



National Research Council Committee on Managing Global Genetic Resources. 

 (1991). The U.S. national plant germplasm system. Managing global genetic re- 

 sources series. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 



Shand, Hope J. (1993, Spring). The conflict between farmers' rights and breeders' 

 rights. RAFI Action, 3(1), 3-4. 



Shand, Hope J. (1992, Winter/Spring). The conflict between farmers' rights and 

 breeders' rights at home and abroad. Culture & Agriculture, 45,46 18-21. 



Thomas, S. (1992). The plant variety protection act and its impact on agricultural 

 diversity. (Position paper no. 4). Decorah, Iowa: Institute for Agricultural Biodiver- 

 sity. 



Vellve, Renee. (1993, Aug.). Saving the seed: genetic diversity and European agricul- 

 ture. Seed Savers 1993 Summer Edition, 5(2), 5-96. 



Wilkes, Garrison. (1987). Plant genetic resources: why privatize a public good? BioS- 

 cience, 37(3), 215-217. 



Wilkes, Garrison. (1989). Germplasm preservation: objectives and needs. In L. Knut- 

 son and A.K. Stoner (Eds.), Biotic Diversity and Germplasm Preservation, Global 

 Imperatives, (pp. 13-41). Dordecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 



STATEMENT OF FRITO-LAY, INC. 



Frito-Lay, Inc., the Nation's leading snack food company, employs 26,000 nation- 

 wide and produces over 100 product lines. The company annually purchases nearly 

 2.5 billion pounds of potatoes to produce its highly recognized LAY'S and RUF- 

 FLES" brand potato chips. Frito-Lay contracts with nearly 200 growers in 35 States 

 each year for the potatoes. Since 1958, the company has maintained a research pro- 

 gram dedicated to the development of varieties suitable for the manufacture of 

 potato chips, annually crossing 80,000 or more plants per year. 



The development of improved potato varieties requires substantial monetary in- 

 vestment to develop the characteristics desirable for various processing operations. 

 Frito-Lay attempts to control the availability of its proprietary varieties by entering 

 into contracts with growers whereby the company supplies the seed and purchases 

 the potatoes when grown. Frito-Lay believes that protection under the Plant Varie- 

 ty Protection Act should be available to developers of potato varieties to control the 

 propogation of a variety and to protect and recoup the investment made in its devel- 

 opment. 



Virtually all plants grown in the United States can be granted certain protection 

 if a new variety of that plant is developed. Sexually reproduced plants are subject to 

 breeder's rights under the Plant Variety Protection Act, and asexually reproduced 

 plants, with the specific exception of tuber-propagated plants, are eligible to be pat- 

 ented under the Plant Patent Act. However, unlike the protection afforded most 

 novel plant varieties by the Federal Government, potatoes are "orphans." They 



