98 



10 



essentially derived variety, then permission of the certificate 

 holder to perform those acts with the essentially derived variety 

 would be required. Conversely, the patent holder could prevent 

 the owner of the initial variety from making, using, or selling 

 the essentially derived variety. 



11. Q. Under S. 1406, protected varieties must be identified 

 and sold by a unique variety name. Currently the same variety 

 may be sold under more than one name and farmers may mistakenly 

 conclude that they are getting a new variety. Will this 

 provision requiring a permanent, unique variety name have an 

 impact on the way seeds are marketed? 



A. The Federal Seed Act (FSA) states that agricultural and 

 vegetable varieties may have only one legally recognized name, 

 and that name must be used by anyone who represents the variety 

 name in labeling and advertising. In addition, approximately 

 eight states currently have varietal labeling laws that require 

 that the varietal name be stated on the seed container. These 

 statutes provide truth-in-labeling, measures meant to protect 

 farmers and home gardeners who purchase seed. S. 1406 may impact 

 those who have not been following these state and federal laws, 

 and will remove the "variety not stated" option for blends or 

 mixtures which include PVP protected varieties. S. 1406 provides 

 some labeling standards for PVP protected ornamental crops, which 

 are not covered by the FSA. Overall, this section of S. 1406 is 

 expected to benefit the agricultural community. 



12. Q. Many states allow seed to be sold as variety-not-stated. 

 If the variety is protected under S. 1406, would this preempt 

 state law? 



A. The Federal Seed Act allows 36 kinds of agricultural 

 seed to be labeled as "variety not stated" when several varieties 

 are blended or mixed together, rather than list the percentage of 

 each varietal component in the blend or mixture. This exception 

 does not apply to vegetable seeds. As a result, the "variety not 

 stated" labeling affects a minority of the many crops that are 

 marketed in the U.S. To the extent that S. 1406 supersedes state 

 laws and only for PVP protected varieties, some conflict may 

 exist . 



13. Q. According to the 1989 OTA report, Patenting Life , PVPA 

 may have reduced the flow and exchange of information and 

 germplasm. Would you expect provisions of this bill -- for 

 instance the essentially-derived definition --to further this 

 trend? 



A. The OTA report did not make a finding as to whether PVPA 

 reduced the flow of germplasm --it quoted contradictory sources 

 on the subject. The introduction of the concept of essentially 



