Farmers Self-Breeding and Self-Using Seeds Allowed to Be Sold or Bartered Sparks Controversy
“If individual farmers have surplus conventional seeds that they have bred and used themselves, they may sell or barter them at rural fairs without needing to apply for a seed production and operation license.” This provision in Article 37 of the draft amendment to the Seed Law was highly controversial. On October 31, multiple members of the Standing Committee and deputies to the National People's Congress attending the meeting as non-voting participants suggested during deliberation that the provision be removed.
Committee member Xu Weigang said that in order to ensure seed quality and guarantee the safety of seeds used by farmers, there are strict management systems for seed production, such as quarantine systems, seed processing quality standards, purity, cleanliness, and germination rate. If farmers take surplus seeds they have bred and used themselves to the market for sale, these seeds will be difficult to supervise and guarantee, and the farmers who buy these seeds or accept them in barter may face the possibility of unsafe seed use. If a dispute arises over seed quality, it will also be impossible to trace. He held that seeds that farmers have bred and used themselves should not be bartered or sold on the market.
“At present, the proportion of land transfer in most parts of the country is already higher than 30%, and many large grain growers, grain-growing cooperatives, and economic organizations are engaged in grain production or seed production. Once this provision comes out, they can take seeds to the market for sale without applying for any license. This is no longer self-breeding and self-use, but a commercial purpose. However, in market management, it is basically impossible to distinguish self-breeding and self-use from other uses, which can easily lead to market confusion, create great difficulties for competent departments at all levels in maintaining and managing the market, and also allow some seed producers and operators who do not comply with laws and regulations to use this to evade the management of the production licensing system for major crop and forest tree seeds.” Xu Weigang suggested deleting Article 37.
Committee member Guo Fenglian believed that this provision was too loose. Some seeds that farmers breed and use themselves have a certain applicability, but counterfeit and inferior seeds often also use self-bred and self-used conventional seeds as a breakthrough point, so this opening cannot be too loose, otherwise it will harm farmers' interests. In reality, some people use the name of self-breeding and self-use when they are actually selling fake seeds. There are many such cases, which have brought great harm to farmers.
Committee member Zhang Ping believed that there should be a definition of whether seeds bred and used by farmers themselves can be sold. “At present, some farming households have several hundred mu or even thousands or tens of thousands of mu of land, and the surplus product is enormous. If they can sell on the market without obtaining an operation license, the number will be very large, which will have a great impact on seed improvement and optimization, and it is very likely to be a negative impact. If problems arise in large-area planting, this will be a blind spot in the law, and responsibility cannot be traced.” He suggested adding after “if individual farmers have surplus conventional seeds that they have bred and used themselves” the sentence “if it does not belong to large-scale operation or large-scale commercial operation, they may sell or barter them at rural fairs,” and at the same time adding after “without needing to apply for a seed production and operation license” the phrase “but they shall bear the consequences themselves.”
“If seeds bred by farmers themselves are freely sold on the market, management will still be quite difficult. There are many individual farmers, so there must be some regulation. If it is too loose, every household, every village, and every mu of land will produce seeds, and new counterfeits and inferior seeds will appear. Seeds bred by farmers themselves have no historical records and no scientific basis, and there is no way to trace them. If farmers are allowed to freely barter and sell on the market, control may be lost.” Lu Zhiming, deputy director of the Standing Committee of the Guizhou Provincial People's Congress, suggested adding certain restrictions after Article 37 of the draft amendment, and that “if individual farmers have surplus conventional seeds that they have bred and used themselves” should be quantified or provided with more specific rules. If there are no restrictions, it may cause losses to farmers.
NPC deputy Zhao Zhihai also did not encourage the sale of seeds that farmers have bred and used themselves on the market: “The seed market is chaotic because some small dealers can do whatever they want, and the cost of breaking the law is too low. We must consider not only the cost for farmers of buying seeds, but also the losses caused to farmers by counterfeit and inferior seeds.”
“This will bring problems to seed management, law enforcement, and agricultural production, and seed supervision and seed law enforcement will have no law to rely on.” NPC deputy He Jianzhong suggested imposing certain constraints on the quantity of seed bartering and sown area and issuing relevant detailed rules.
Failure to Implement Filing Makes Seed Production Chaos Difficult to Resolve
Reported by our reporter Zhu Ningning. Although the second review draft of the Seed Law amendment increased penalties for illegal acts, during group deliberation some Standing Committee members and attendees still believed it was not enough.
In order to streamline administration and delegate power, the draft amendment merged seed production licensing and seed operation licensing into one, simplifying prior approval into filing. In this regard, committee member Bai Zhijian believed that the current chaos in seed production requires stronger enforcement of the system, and it is necessary to punish relevant acts to ensure implementation of the system. “The media has repeatedly reported news of illegal seed production, reflecting the proliferation of local illegal seed production. Reality tells us that supervision before, during, and after the event must be strengthened. If seed production and operation licensing are merged into one, and the filing system is not fully implemented, the problem of chaotic seed production will be difficult to resolve.” He suggested changing Item 5 of Article 80 of the draft amendment to “failing to file according to the contents stipulated in Article 39.” The reason is that only with prohibitions and penalties can implementation of the system be ensured, while the legal liability provisions of the draft amendment contain no corresponding penalty clause.
Committee member Ouyang Song believed that the provisions on fines in the draft amendment were too weak to deter illegal acts, especially acts infringing intellectual property rights. If the amount of the fine is far less than the illegal gains from infringing intellectual property rights, then infringing acts will continue to occur. He suggested increasing the severity of fines to stop such illegal acts.
⟧ Zhang Zuoha, a member of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee of the National People's Congress, suggested unifying the penalty standards and amounts for the two illegal acts of producing and operating fake seeds and counterfeiting authorized varieties. “According to Article 49, passing off seeds of one variety as seeds of another variety should be regarded as fake seeds. In actual grassroots practice, there is a certain difficulty in distinguishing and determining the two illegal acts. The first review draft stipulated the same penalty standards and amounts for the two illegal acts, but the second review draft made different provisions in Articles 73 and 75, which is not conducive to grassroots law enforcement. It is suggested to restore the provisions in the first review draft, or to link and unify the penalty standards for the two.”
NPC deputy Zhao Zhihai suggested adding to the legal liability provisions a rule that relevant illegal information be included in personal credit records. “In order to increase penalties for illegal acts, a provision may be added to the legal liability provisions: for lawbreakers who violate this Law by engaging in production and operation infringement, counterfeit seeds, fabricating false variety trial seed inspection data, falsifying seed production and operation archives, marking false seed label information, and other dishonest acts, their illegal information shall be included in personal credit archives and announced to society.”
“The production and operation of counterfeit and inferior seeds must be severely punished and cracked down on. In addition to revoking the seed production and operation license, they should also be barred from engaging in seed production and operation for 10 years or permanently, and if the circumstances are serious, criminal penalties should be imposed.” NPC deputy Jiang Jian believed that efforts should be increased to stop illegal acts. While strengthening government supervision, seed testing, inspection, and examination results should be published to the market, letting the market eliminate or restrain law-breaking enterprises, using the power of consumers to control counterfeit and inferior seeds, and forcing enterprises to be honest.
Research Institutions Should Be Encouraged to Integrate Industry, Academia, and Research
In order to stimulate the market vitality of enterprises, the second review draft of the Seed Law amendment gave enterprises a “green light.” During group deliberation, some Standing Committee members believed that the state should encourage scientific research and teaching units, especially applied research and teaching units, to integrate industry, academia, and research. Giving only enterprises a “green light” is unfair, and they suggested adding “scientific research and teaching units” to mobilize the enthusiasm of both sides.
Committee member Yan Xiaopei suggested adding a provision to Article 17: seed enterprises that combine breeding with production and operation and meet the conditions stipulated by the agriculture and forestry competent departments of the State Council, as well as scientific research and teaching units that meet the conditions stipulated by the agriculture and forestry competent departments of the State Council, may, for major crop varieties and major forest tree varieties independently developed by them, complete trials on their own according to the approval measures; for varieties that meet the approval standards, the variety approval committee shall issue approval certificates.
“Research institutes are in fact the main force in the stage of seed protection, research, breeding, and testing, so excluding them is unreasonable.” pointed out committee member Zhu Jingzhi.
Committee member Xu Weigang suggested changing Article 17 to “seed enterprises and scientific research and teaching institutions that combine breeding with production and meet the conditions stipulated by the agriculture and forestry competent departments of the State Council.” The reason is that the Ministry of Agriculture has issued the Notice on Further Improving and Perfecting Variety Trial and Approval Work, which provides that qualified scientific research and teaching units also have the right to conduct independent trials. In addition, scientific and technical personnel in scientific research and teaching units nationwide are not only the main body in variety breeding, but also capable of conducting independent trials, and they should be granted such rights.
Committee member Wen Fujiang believed that the Seed Law should provide a transitional clause moving from the current situation, in which breeding is mainly done by colleges, universities, and research institutes, to one in which breeding is mainly done by enterprises, in order to solve the outlet for seeds bred by colleges and universities and the seed resources they hold.