I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(2) Plant breeders' rights shall not apply to a variety containing a terminator system, where the inclusion of such a system inhibits the use of seed defined under the ‘farm saved seed exemption' referred to in section 19(1)(d) of the Plant Varieties (Proprietary Rights) (Amendment) Act, 1998.".
The seed industry worldwide accounts for about $40 billion in sales annually. The commercial value of seed used by farmers globally has been estimated at between $60 billion and $75 billion. The difference in these values is due to the widespread farm practice known as plant back or farmers' privilege. Farmers often plant seed saved from a previous year's harvest for next year's production instead of purchasing certified seed from a seed company.
This practice is particularly common in the major field crops of high commercial value such as wheat and soya bean. To a lesser extent, it is common in some production regions for cotton and for potatoes in this country. Because these crops are over-pollinated parent plants transfer traits uniformly through seed to the progeny plants. Thus, for these crops, as long as the farmer is satisfied at the performance of the previous year's crop, there is a limited incentive to purchase seed.
Generally, the price of over-pollinated seed is a small premium over the commodity value of this seed. The premium is based on the cost of cleaning and conditioning the seed plus a charge to offset breeding of improved varieties. Only the hybrid crops, where progeny segregate into nonuniform populations with varying traits relative to their parent plants, is a practice of plant back selection found. The yield loss associated with these dissimilar field populations eliminates any economic incentive to plant with saved seed. However, with the onset of the new terminator gene technology, companies can prevent second generation progeny from the non-hybrid seed germinating. The economic climate of this new technology must also be noted. It comes at a time when many of the larger seed companies are being acquired by major multi-national agrochemical companies. The recent multi-million pound takeover by Monsanto of Delta and Pine Land See Company, producing an agribusiness giant which wholly controls the new seed sterilising technology is worrying. Again, it is not the science but the economic appliance of the science which caused major concern.
We have a unique opportunity to strengthen our farmer privilege as outlined in section 19 and to include this proposed amendment so as to legislate for this terminator technology, which was commercially announced on 11 May this year. The many areas and sections of gene technology must be legislated for in a case by case fashion. In this case, the amendment outlined will, in a forward thinking manner, allow for such effective legislation.
Recently, the director general of CIMMYT in Mexico, an international maize and wheat improved centre which develops sustainable maize and wheat systems for the poor countries, announced in Ottawa that this centre would refuse to use terminator technology. Since this organisation is the world's premier maize and wheat developer, it must at least raise questions over this technology's effect on farmers' privilege.
This newly patented technique that genetically alters seed so that it will not germinate if replanted a second time could jeopardise the food security of 1.4 billion people as these resource poor farmers in the southern hemisphere depend on farm saved seed. These farmers are responsible for feeding between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of the world's population.
Unlike hybrid seeds introduced earlier this century, the terminator technology brings to date relatively little agroeconomic benefits to the farmer. It is simply a mechanism to physically reduce the frequency of plant back practices and hence tighten up loss making in the market. This amendment will ensure farmers are guaranteed their rights to farm saved seed under section 19 of the Bill. Section 19 allows farmers to use for prorogation on their own holdings seed obtained from crops harvested on that farm. Without the protection of this amendment which copperfastens this right in relation to terminator gene technology, section 19 will be defunct because the use of terminator technology in plants, exempted under ministerial order, will stop the seed from producing a second crop.
Terminator technology is a powerful tool to control the propagation and reproduction of any crop. The principle of the Bill is to balance the rights of the breeder with that of the farmer to use farm saved seed. I remind the Minister of the historical background to the farm saved seed section. The right of the farmer to save seed to grow a second crop is historically based in threat of famine. It allowed the farmer to grow this subsequent crop to stave off starvation and ensure the survival of his family. Today, we do not have that risk in Ireland; but there is such a risk in other parts of the world and while this legislation will not impact outside this country, it will set down a principle in the Statute Book and leave the door open for less developed countries to follow suit. For a country which has prided itself on helping others facing famine, it would strengthen that position.
I draw the Minister's attention to the goal of genetic engineering in food production, which is to ensure food is produced cheaply and in large quantities to avoid the recurrence of famine. Genetic engineering claims to feed the world, but terminator technology in this situation may end up controlling food production.
Another aspect to this matter is nearer to home. Companies with this technology can hold farmers to ransom in relation to what they can charge for this seed. A copperfastened farm seed guarantee gives the farmer a bargaining chip to negotiate a more realistic price for his seed. At present in the US, one of the biggest seed producers in the world, Monsanto, is negotiating with the US Government for sole rights to the terminator gene technology patent. If this happens, we can be sure that this company will introduce this technology in all its seed products.
I am aware of the need for the introduction of terminator genes in genetically engineered plants as this prevents their proliferation in the environment. However, without the amendment section 19, which allows farmers to use farm safe seed, will be obsolete in the future. From speaking to officials in the Department, I have been informed that, following legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General, the Government does not intend to accept the amendment.
I wish to highlight a number of points in that regard. First, the UPOV Convention was signed in 1991. At that stage terminator gene technology was not an issue because people did not know about it. Second, the amendment does not conflict with the UPOV Convention or Council regulations as neither of them prohibit the inclusion of such an amendment and both allow for the inclusion of a farm safe seed exemption. This exemption is worthless without the amendment. Will the Minister clarify the legal advice he received? Did it state that the breeder has an overriding right over that of the farmer or do both have equal rights? The amendment would only secure farmers' rights to farm safe seed and has no additional implications.
Under Article 6 of the EU Directive on Biotechnology, genetic engineering inventions can be considered unpatentable where their commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality. This Article gives the Minister scope to accept the amendment on the grounds of morality. Nobody would believe that it is morally right to have control of seed production in the hands of a small number of multinational companies.
Many countries and humanitarian organisations in the EU and elsewhere are now realising the full implications of this technology. The Dutch Parliament recently moved to oppose the European patent directive by appealing it to the European Court of Justice. The terminator patent was one of the key issues that prompted it to renew its objections to the patent directive. Rural Advancement Foundation International has launched an international campaign to stop negotiations between the US Government and a subsidiary of Monsanto regarding the rights to the terminator gene patent.
I urge the Minister to accept the amendment and leave power in the hands of farmers, not solely in the hands of a small number of multi-national companies. The amendment guarantees farm safe seed for farmers. This legislation which has been debated on a number of occasions will be obsolete in the future because multinational companies will not need it to protect their rights. They will have terminator technology which will inhibit the reproduction of plants for a second and subsequent generations. Without the amendment the Bill will be completely obsolete in a number of years because of terminator gene technology.
It is crucial to set a precedent and to state that we are not willing to let multinational companies dictate to farmers what they can or cannot do. Genetic engineering is supposed to be of benefit to farmers and consumers. However, the way this technology is used in the future will create the opposite effect and control seed production worldwide. This is of immense concern to many countries which have poorly developed economies. I ask the Minister to reconsider the amendment and accept it because it is a crucial issue. The amendment foresees the problems which will arise in the future in relation to the legislation. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.