Seed quality dispute rights protection cannot become a protracted war

One day late at night, Yang Guangjun called the reporter, his voice filled with anxiety. He said that if the matter could not be resolved, he would not plant the main spring crop for the season, and once the land was left barren, the government would start to worry. Months of running around and negotiation, hope followed by disappointment, had already left him mentally and physically exhausted.

But on the other hand, the seed company and the dealer also expressed that they felt wronged. Why was it that with the same variety and the same batch of seeds, other farmers had no problems? Who could guarantee that it was not caused by poor management by the grower, weather, soil, or other factors leading to trait variation?

So besides field identification methods, could the latest molecular identification technology be used to give a clear answer? Only after extensive inquiries did the reporter learn that although molecular identification technology for vegetable varieties is already relatively mature, at present China has only established authoritative gene banks for bulk grain and oil crops such as rice and corn, and the many vegetable varieties have not yet been included in gene banks. This means that because there is no authoritative comparison sample, molecular identification technology is difficult to use in vegetable disputes.

In recent years, a number of seed dispute cases with major social impact have repeatedly appeared in the press, especially for higher-value cash crops, where the amounts involved often run into millions of yuan. Once a seed quality dispute occurs, if a more authoritative and more scientific technical identification could quickly clarify responsibility, the parties would not be trapped in a prolonged “tug-of-war.”

In addition, the reporter also found during interviews that although new farmers such as Wang Min and Yang Guangjun have a relatively strong awareness of rights protection, they are completely confused about the relevant laws and regulations, and the identification of seed authenticity also has an extremely high professional threshold. To effectively protect their own rights and interests, guidance from professional institutions is still needed. In this case, the competent industry authorities did a great deal of work, but the provisions of relevant laws and regulations on the role of competent authorities in seed dispute cases appear somewhat “broad-brush.” Grassroots departments find it difficult to find a basis for action, and may also face accusations of inaction.

It can be foreseen that because fewer seeds are saved for personal use, the quantity of commercial seeds purchased will inevitably increase greatly. Farmers who originally planted one mu and a half of land would often not bother to seek compensation even if they discovered they had bought fake or inferior seeds. But the future will be different. As the proportion of large-scale planting continues to rise, even a slight deviation in seed quality may cause huge economic losses to large-scale growers. Therefore, whether at the legal level, the basic facilities level, or the level of combining multiple technical means, improvements should be made as soon as possible.