TAKE ACTION! Save Our Seed! Stop Bill C-18!
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:20 pmTAKE ACTION! Save Our Seed! Stop Bill C-18!
[ http://www.nfu.ca/issues/save-our-seed ]
Download, print and get signatures on our Petition. Once you have at least 25 signatures take the petition to your MP's office and ask him or her to present it in Parliament.
[ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... tition.pdf ]
( *NOTE: Numerous LINKS - please go to Original URL above )
The rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, exchange, and sell seeds are under attack again.
On November 13, 2013, Canada’s Agriculture Minister, Gerry Ritz, announced that Canada plans to sign on to UPOV ’91 by August 1 2014. On December 9, 2013 he introduced an omnibus agriculture bill in Parliament, called the "Agricultural Growth Act" which contains the required amendments to the Plant Breeders Rights Act to conform with UPOV '91 among other measures.
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is an intergovernmental organization that has created model laws that allow seed developers to claim property rights similar to patents. Canada joined UPOV and adopted its 1978 model law by passing thePlant Breeders’ Rights Act in 1990. The1991 model law, known as UPOV ’91, enhances the rights of multinational seed companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, Viterra, Pioneer, DuPont and Cargill, while restricting farmers’ rights.
The NFU has prepared a Stop Bill C-18 Toolkit to assist members and others to organize effective opposition to Bill C-18. Please check the toolkit page frequently, as we will be adding new material as it becomes available.
Adopting UPOV ’91 will immediately:
· reduce the freedom and independence of Canadian farmers by making it much more difficult to save and reuse seed forcing them to pay more for seed;
· impinge on the autonomy of independent seed cleaners;
· transfer millions of dollars every year from farmers to plant breeders’ rights (PBR) holders
· consolidate the power and control of world’s largest agribusiness corporations over seed, and thus over the Canadian farming and food system.
As well, if Canada adopts UPOV ’91:
· Farmers will not be allowed to save, store or clean seed for replanting without the express permission of the PBR holder. If granted, such permission is dependent on the government adopting, on a crop by crop basis, an exemption called the farmers’ privilege which may be time-limited and would likely entail payment of royalties to the PBR holder. Read Farmer's Privilege and UPOV '91 to learn more.
· Companies will have a ‘cascading right’ allowing them to demand payment of “end-point royalties” on the whole crop – including each cut of hay on forage crops – instead of just on newly purchased seed if or when the company has been unable to collect adequate royalties on seed alone.
· Companies will be entitled to royalties for at least 20 years on each variety for which they hold PBRs (up from the current 18 years under Canada’s UPOV ’78 regime.)
· Seed cleaners will require permission from PBR holders to clean seed which, if granted, may be subject to conditions such as payment of fees to the PBR holder.
· Mills and processors that buy crops will require assurance that the farmer-seller has paid PBR royalties to avoid the risk of litigation by the PBR holder.
· "Farmers privilege” to save a small amount of seed from designated crops may be granted by governments through legislation, but this privilege could be rendered useless because seed companies would be able to restrict seed cleaning and storage.
Demands under UPOV ’91 for royalty payments, along with restrictions on farm-saved seed, have long-term implications for Canadian agriculture that will change its structure and negatively affect farmers’ livelihoods. Some of the likely changes include:
· higher per-acre cost of production due to higher seed prices;
· lower margins because end-use royalties will reduce potential gross income at sale;
· fewer and larger farms because reduced profitability will drive larger scales of production;
· loss of independent seed cleaning businesses as farmers are forced to buy seed directly from PBR holders or their licensees instead of cleaning a portion of their harvested crops for use as seed;
· increased litigation within the value chain as PBR holders seek to maximize royalty revenues;
· increased use of inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides as farmers seek to maximize yields and reduce risks to cover the increased cost of seed;
· negative effects on air, water, soil, biodiversity due to increased use of inputs;
· loss of vibrant rural communities as economic activity decreases because wealth is transferred from local farmers to distant, often foreign, holders of PBRs.
If adopted, UPOV ’91 would interact with other parts of Canada’s seed regulatory system. Proposed and recent changes to the Variety Registration Regulations and the pending privatization of pedigreed seed crop inspection all work together to tighten the control seed companies can exert over farmers and the food system. The NFU warned about these mechanisms in its 2006 brief, An Analysis of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s “Proposal to Facilitate the Modernization of the Seed Regulatory Framework”UPOV '91 would become one more tooth on the "corporate ratchet" being used to increase and entrench the power of global agri-business corporations over farmers and our food supply.
There are alternatives to adopting UPOV ’91!
1. Pending the adoption of a truly farmer-friendly seed law, maintain Canada’s current UPOV ’78 Plant Breeders’ Rights regime. UPOV ’78 balances the interests of the public, farmers and plant breeders in a manner accepted by the Canadian public, and which also allows Canada to meet its international obligations for intellectual property rights protection.
2. Restore Funding to Public Plant Breeding. Canada’s public plant breeders are internationally respected and have made immeasurable contributions to Canadian agriculture. For example, canola was developed by public plant breeders at the University of Manitoba in the 1970s. Laird, a lentil variety suitable for prairie production, was developed at the University of Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre (CDC). Nearly all of our wheat varieties have been developed by AAFC in collaboration with several Canadian universities. None of these varieties would have been part of Canadian agriculture without the government’s long-term support for public plant breeding. The rewards of this public investment are clear.
Recent federal budgets have reduced funding for public plant breeding, and remaining dollars are being directed to public-private funding partnerships and commercialization initiatives. Public funds therefore are skewed toward supporting private commercial interests rather than public-interest research for public benefit.
3. Take Public Plant Breeding to Variety Level. The federal government has stopped funding public plant breeding beyond the development of germplasm, which must then be sold to private breeders to develop varieties for commercialization. The new varieties so developed are privately owned and subject to plant breeders’ rights. Farmers, whose check-off dollars support this research, will pay yet again through the increased royalties that would be granted under UPOV ’91. This system of private interests benefitting twice – first by using public research funding and then by collecting royalties on seed and production – is unjust and against the public interest.
4. Protect farmers from expensive court litigation regarding plant variety and patent disputes. The NFU recommends that the government create a body like the Canadian Grain Commission that would settle disputes such that farmers would be on a level playing field with multinational companies and legal fees would not impede their defense.
So-called “trade deals” are being used to enforce plant breeders rights and prevent farmers from saving seed. See Factsheet #6 for information about how CETA is connected with the attack on our right to save seeds. Leaked text from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations shows that it requires countries to sign on to UPOV ’91.
At the 2012 NFU Convention, Terry Boehm gave a presentation called "UPOV '91 ... Again" outlining the state of the attack on seed saving.
You may also be interested in the film, Seeds of Change, a documentary produced as part of a larger study, a farmer-focused Risk Analysis of Genetically Modified Crops in the Canadian Prairies
In 2005 the NFU worked with allies and citizens across Canada and we were able to stop changes to the Seed Act that were being proposed through the Seed Sector Review.
Together, we can retain control of Canada’s vital seed supply.
Take Action!
Download, print and get signatures on our Petition Once you have at least 25 signatures take the petition to your MP's office and ask him or her to present it in Parliament.
[ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... tition.pdf ]
= = = = = =
NFU Proposes New Vision for Canadian Seed Ownership
[ http://www.nfu.ca/story/nfu-proposes-ne ... -ownership ]
Media Release January 20, 2014
(Saskatoon, SK): Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act favours further consolidation of the seed industry into a few corporate hands, which will end up costing farmers more for seeds of all types.
“The government is selling the ag omnibus legislation as ‘the only way’ to provide the new plant varieties that farmers need to maintain their competitive advantage,” says Terry Boehm, Chair of the NFU’s Seed and Trade Committee.
“We – and many other farmers and progressive thinkers in the world – know that there are other ways to ensure that farmers have access to new seed varieties in ways that do not compromise either our national sovereignty or our control over seeds and, therefore, over our food.”
The NFU has put forward “Fundamental Principles for a Farmers’ Seed Act” [ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... 0Act_0.pdf ] which recognizes the inherent rights of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seeds, while protecting public domains related to plant seeds. The principles build on Canada’s 2002 signing of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, by which farmers would retain their “customary” use of seed.
Boehm asserts one reason only for agribusiness’s pursuit of these legislative changes, especially implementation of UPOV ’91, a much more restrictive intellectual property rights protection regime than what is now in place. “UPOV ’91 is a way to transfer enormous amounts of money from farmers’ pockets into corporate coffers,” he argued.
Boehm outlined the NFU’s Farmers’ Seed Act [ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... 0Act_0.pdf ] , which assures the right to exchange and sell, as well as clean, treat and store seed. “Farmers – in fact Canadians – cannot allow giant corporations to take control of our seed resources,” said Boehm. “Those who control seed control food, and as a sovereign nation we must ensure that control of seed and food is protected in the public interest. The NFU Farmers Seed Act will make a major contribution to that goal.”
The Act’s principles address the full spectrum of activities involved in ensuring Canada’s sovereignty in the area of seeds – from reproduction, saving, storing and re-using to cleaning and treating; from variety registration to third-party dispute settlement mechanisms; as well as restrictions on royalty claims, among others. “Canadians have lost a lot over the last two years,” notes Boehm. “Research budgets have been gutted. Canada’s world-recognized research programs have been torn apart. Agencies with the specific role of balancing power relationships among farmers and giant international agri-businesses have been weakened or dismantled, while corporations have been given carte blanche over the seed industry and thus our food system.”
“This “Farmers’ Seed Act”, which is based on principles that serve public rather than private interests, is a rallying point for farmer and eater alike,” emphasized Boehm. “All Canadians can stand behind its principles. By calling for our elected officials to act on these principles, we give a strong message about the kind of Canada we want – a Canada that is sovereign in regard to seed and food,” he concluded. - 30 -
For more information, contact:
Terry Boehm, Chair,
NFU Seed and Trade Committee: (306) 255-2880 or (306) 255-7638
Jan Slomp,
NFU President: (403) 843-2068 or (403) 704-4364
Ann Slater,
NFU Vice President (Policy): (519) 349-2448
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act -- Growth for whom?
[ http://www.firstperspective.ca/index.ph ... h-for-whom ]
By Jan Slomp January 20, 2014
On December 9th, 2013, omnibus Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act to Parliament went for first reading. Passing Bill C-18 would make Canada compliant with UPOV ‘91, a much more restrictive form of Plant Breeders’ Rights than we currently have. The second part of the Act will prepare Canada’s regulatory regime for fast track approval of feed or food additives, drugs or other inventions that are already approved in jurisdictions we trade with. Bill C-18 also opens the door for farmers to tap into multi-year advance payments secured by crops in storage or grown in the future.
After a groundswell of farmer-led opposition to adopting UPOV ‘91 in 2005, the Liberal government of the day let it quietly die, as it became clear that farmers would be drastically restricted in their ability to save, reuse, exchange and sell seed. The Canadian public clearly demanded that genetic resources remain a public good.
Before reintroducing UPOV ‘91 through Bill C-18, Agriculture Minister Ritz has been actively spreading the myth and managing to convince many farm organizations and commodity groups that saving seed is enshrined in this bill. It is obvious that UPOV ‘91 gives plant breeders significantly more “rights “ and tools for royalty collection, while farmers’ seed-saving right is reduced merely to “privilege”. A privilege was typically given to peasants by feudal lords, and could be arbitrarily and unpredictably retracted.
A closer look at the text of Bill C-18 reveals that indeed, it talks about a farmer’s ability to save seed. When storing that saved seed, however, the farmer needs the permission of the holder of the Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) – which may or may not be given. Of course the breeder has the right to charge royalties as well.
Bill C-18 in fact also empowers government to remove, restrict or limit the farmer’s seed-saving privilege by passing regulations, a process that can happen quickly and without public debate.
UPOV ‘91 has many provisions for royalty collection after seed has been harvested, when seed is cleaned in seed cleaning plants or when a crop is moved off the farm for sale at elevators and other points of transaction, in the year seed was harvested or any year after that.
UPOV ’91 confers very similar powers to plant breeders that patents have conferred to developers of genetically modified crops. For example, a farmer seeding a quarter section of a PBR variety of gene-patented canola typically spends $12,000 on seed. Another farmer who managed to find a similar yielding variety of non-GM canola, a variety not yet delisted, typically only spends about $3,200 on seed. If Canada passes Bill C-18 farmers will be increasingly exposed to significantly higher charges for oats, wheat and barley seed or any other seed, similar to what they presently spend on a PBR variety of canola where the variety owners in many cases do not allow any seed saving and steadily ratchet the price of seed upward. The extended royalty enforcement mechanisms laid out in Bill C-18’s changes to our Plant Breeders’ Rights law will rapidly discipline farmers to pay that higher price.
Farmers already pay approximately $100 million in check-off funds for variety development. Besides public funds and the farmer-paid check-off, prairie grain variety development also receives funding from any surplus in the grain transportation revenue cap. The amount that farmers can be charged by rail companies to haul prairie grain to ports is limited by a revenue cap. Any charges over and above that revenue cap are retroactively collected and allocated for prairie grain variety development.
Canadians should reject UPOV ’91 and defeat Bill C-18. Instead, we should reinforce our public plant breeding programs. With the continued allocation of farmer check-off dollars, there will be ample funding for essential variety development. There is absolutely no need to grant transnational plant breeders more tools to remove an excessive amount of money from farmers. Adopting UPOV ‘91 may result in some genetic improvements of crops, but at significantly higher costs than a public-interest breeding system that benefits the whole Canadian economy. The higher seed costs extracted from farmers under UPOV ’91 would fatten profits for Bayer, Monsanto, Dow and Syngenta and other seed and chemical companies headquartered outside of our country.
Jan Slomp, President
National Farmers Union (NFU)
(403) 843-2068
- - - -
Jan Slomp is President of the National Farmers Union. He holistically manages a 65-cow dairy farm near Rimbey, Alberta.
[ http://www.nfu.ca/issues/save-our-seed ]
Download, print and get signatures on our Petition. Once you have at least 25 signatures take the petition to your MP's office and ask him or her to present it in Parliament.
[ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... tition.pdf ]
( *NOTE: Numerous LINKS - please go to Original URL above )
The rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, exchange, and sell seeds are under attack again.
On November 13, 2013, Canada’s Agriculture Minister, Gerry Ritz, announced that Canada plans to sign on to UPOV ’91 by August 1 2014. On December 9, 2013 he introduced an omnibus agriculture bill in Parliament, called the "Agricultural Growth Act" which contains the required amendments to the Plant Breeders Rights Act to conform with UPOV '91 among other measures.
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is an intergovernmental organization that has created model laws that allow seed developers to claim property rights similar to patents. Canada joined UPOV and adopted its 1978 model law by passing thePlant Breeders’ Rights Act in 1990. The1991 model law, known as UPOV ’91, enhances the rights of multinational seed companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, Viterra, Pioneer, DuPont and Cargill, while restricting farmers’ rights.
The NFU has prepared a Stop Bill C-18 Toolkit to assist members and others to organize effective opposition to Bill C-18. Please check the toolkit page frequently, as we will be adding new material as it becomes available.
Adopting UPOV ’91 will immediately:
· reduce the freedom and independence of Canadian farmers by making it much more difficult to save and reuse seed forcing them to pay more for seed;
· impinge on the autonomy of independent seed cleaners;
· transfer millions of dollars every year from farmers to plant breeders’ rights (PBR) holders
· consolidate the power and control of world’s largest agribusiness corporations over seed, and thus over the Canadian farming and food system.
As well, if Canada adopts UPOV ’91:
· Farmers will not be allowed to save, store or clean seed for replanting without the express permission of the PBR holder. If granted, such permission is dependent on the government adopting, on a crop by crop basis, an exemption called the farmers’ privilege which may be time-limited and would likely entail payment of royalties to the PBR holder. Read Farmer's Privilege and UPOV '91 to learn more.
· Companies will have a ‘cascading right’ allowing them to demand payment of “end-point royalties” on the whole crop – including each cut of hay on forage crops – instead of just on newly purchased seed if or when the company has been unable to collect adequate royalties on seed alone.
· Companies will be entitled to royalties for at least 20 years on each variety for which they hold PBRs (up from the current 18 years under Canada’s UPOV ’78 regime.)
· Seed cleaners will require permission from PBR holders to clean seed which, if granted, may be subject to conditions such as payment of fees to the PBR holder.
· Mills and processors that buy crops will require assurance that the farmer-seller has paid PBR royalties to avoid the risk of litigation by the PBR holder.
· "Farmers privilege” to save a small amount of seed from designated crops may be granted by governments through legislation, but this privilege could be rendered useless because seed companies would be able to restrict seed cleaning and storage.
Demands under UPOV ’91 for royalty payments, along with restrictions on farm-saved seed, have long-term implications for Canadian agriculture that will change its structure and negatively affect farmers’ livelihoods. Some of the likely changes include:
· higher per-acre cost of production due to higher seed prices;
· lower margins because end-use royalties will reduce potential gross income at sale;
· fewer and larger farms because reduced profitability will drive larger scales of production;
· loss of independent seed cleaning businesses as farmers are forced to buy seed directly from PBR holders or their licensees instead of cleaning a portion of their harvested crops for use as seed;
· increased litigation within the value chain as PBR holders seek to maximize royalty revenues;
· increased use of inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides as farmers seek to maximize yields and reduce risks to cover the increased cost of seed;
· negative effects on air, water, soil, biodiversity due to increased use of inputs;
· loss of vibrant rural communities as economic activity decreases because wealth is transferred from local farmers to distant, often foreign, holders of PBRs.
If adopted, UPOV ’91 would interact with other parts of Canada’s seed regulatory system. Proposed and recent changes to the Variety Registration Regulations and the pending privatization of pedigreed seed crop inspection all work together to tighten the control seed companies can exert over farmers and the food system. The NFU warned about these mechanisms in its 2006 brief, An Analysis of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s “Proposal to Facilitate the Modernization of the Seed Regulatory Framework”UPOV '91 would become one more tooth on the "corporate ratchet" being used to increase and entrench the power of global agri-business corporations over farmers and our food supply.
There are alternatives to adopting UPOV ’91!
1. Pending the adoption of a truly farmer-friendly seed law, maintain Canada’s current UPOV ’78 Plant Breeders’ Rights regime. UPOV ’78 balances the interests of the public, farmers and plant breeders in a manner accepted by the Canadian public, and which also allows Canada to meet its international obligations for intellectual property rights protection.
2. Restore Funding to Public Plant Breeding. Canada’s public plant breeders are internationally respected and have made immeasurable contributions to Canadian agriculture. For example, canola was developed by public plant breeders at the University of Manitoba in the 1970s. Laird, a lentil variety suitable for prairie production, was developed at the University of Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre (CDC). Nearly all of our wheat varieties have been developed by AAFC in collaboration with several Canadian universities. None of these varieties would have been part of Canadian agriculture without the government’s long-term support for public plant breeding. The rewards of this public investment are clear.
Recent federal budgets have reduced funding for public plant breeding, and remaining dollars are being directed to public-private funding partnerships and commercialization initiatives. Public funds therefore are skewed toward supporting private commercial interests rather than public-interest research for public benefit.
3. Take Public Plant Breeding to Variety Level. The federal government has stopped funding public plant breeding beyond the development of germplasm, which must then be sold to private breeders to develop varieties for commercialization. The new varieties so developed are privately owned and subject to plant breeders’ rights. Farmers, whose check-off dollars support this research, will pay yet again through the increased royalties that would be granted under UPOV ’91. This system of private interests benefitting twice – first by using public research funding and then by collecting royalties on seed and production – is unjust and against the public interest.
4. Protect farmers from expensive court litigation regarding plant variety and patent disputes. The NFU recommends that the government create a body like the Canadian Grain Commission that would settle disputes such that farmers would be on a level playing field with multinational companies and legal fees would not impede their defense.
So-called “trade deals” are being used to enforce plant breeders rights and prevent farmers from saving seed. See Factsheet #6 for information about how CETA is connected with the attack on our right to save seeds. Leaked text from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations shows that it requires countries to sign on to UPOV ’91.
At the 2012 NFU Convention, Terry Boehm gave a presentation called "UPOV '91 ... Again" outlining the state of the attack on seed saving.
You may also be interested in the film, Seeds of Change, a documentary produced as part of a larger study, a farmer-focused Risk Analysis of Genetically Modified Crops in the Canadian Prairies
In 2005 the NFU worked with allies and citizens across Canada and we were able to stop changes to the Seed Act that were being proposed through the Seed Sector Review.
Together, we can retain control of Canada’s vital seed supply.
Take Action!
Download, print and get signatures on our Petition Once you have at least 25 signatures take the petition to your MP's office and ask him or her to present it in Parliament.
[ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... tition.pdf ]
= = = = = =
NFU Proposes New Vision for Canadian Seed Ownership
[ http://www.nfu.ca/story/nfu-proposes-ne ... -ownership ]
Media Release January 20, 2014
(Saskatoon, SK): Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act favours further consolidation of the seed industry into a few corporate hands, which will end up costing farmers more for seeds of all types.
“The government is selling the ag omnibus legislation as ‘the only way’ to provide the new plant varieties that farmers need to maintain their competitive advantage,” says Terry Boehm, Chair of the NFU’s Seed and Trade Committee.
“We – and many other farmers and progressive thinkers in the world – know that there are other ways to ensure that farmers have access to new seed varieties in ways that do not compromise either our national sovereignty or our control over seeds and, therefore, over our food.”
The NFU has put forward “Fundamental Principles for a Farmers’ Seed Act” [ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... 0Act_0.pdf ] which recognizes the inherent rights of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seeds, while protecting public domains related to plant seeds. The principles build on Canada’s 2002 signing of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, by which farmers would retain their “customary” use of seed.
Boehm asserts one reason only for agribusiness’s pursuit of these legislative changes, especially implementation of UPOV ’91, a much more restrictive intellectual property rights protection regime than what is now in place. “UPOV ’91 is a way to transfer enormous amounts of money from farmers’ pockets into corporate coffers,” he argued.
Boehm outlined the NFU’s Farmers’ Seed Act [ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... 0Act_0.pdf ] , which assures the right to exchange and sell, as well as clean, treat and store seed. “Farmers – in fact Canadians – cannot allow giant corporations to take control of our seed resources,” said Boehm. “Those who control seed control food, and as a sovereign nation we must ensure that control of seed and food is protected in the public interest. The NFU Farmers Seed Act will make a major contribution to that goal.”
The Act’s principles address the full spectrum of activities involved in ensuring Canada’s sovereignty in the area of seeds – from reproduction, saving, storing and re-using to cleaning and treating; from variety registration to third-party dispute settlement mechanisms; as well as restrictions on royalty claims, among others. “Canadians have lost a lot over the last two years,” notes Boehm. “Research budgets have been gutted. Canada’s world-recognized research programs have been torn apart. Agencies with the specific role of balancing power relationships among farmers and giant international agri-businesses have been weakened or dismantled, while corporations have been given carte blanche over the seed industry and thus our food system.”
“This “Farmers’ Seed Act”, which is based on principles that serve public rather than private interests, is a rallying point for farmer and eater alike,” emphasized Boehm. “All Canadians can stand behind its principles. By calling for our elected officials to act on these principles, we give a strong message about the kind of Canada we want – a Canada that is sovereign in regard to seed and food,” he concluded. - 30 -
For more information, contact:
Terry Boehm, Chair,
NFU Seed and Trade Committee: (306) 255-2880 or (306) 255-7638
Jan Slomp,
NFU President: (403) 843-2068 or (403) 704-4364
Ann Slater,
NFU Vice President (Policy): (519) 349-2448
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act -- Growth for whom?
[ http://www.firstperspective.ca/index.ph ... h-for-whom ]
By Jan Slomp January 20, 2014
On December 9th, 2013, omnibus Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act to Parliament went for first reading. Passing Bill C-18 would make Canada compliant with UPOV ‘91, a much more restrictive form of Plant Breeders’ Rights than we currently have. The second part of the Act will prepare Canada’s regulatory regime for fast track approval of feed or food additives, drugs or other inventions that are already approved in jurisdictions we trade with. Bill C-18 also opens the door for farmers to tap into multi-year advance payments secured by crops in storage or grown in the future.
After a groundswell of farmer-led opposition to adopting UPOV ‘91 in 2005, the Liberal government of the day let it quietly die, as it became clear that farmers would be drastically restricted in their ability to save, reuse, exchange and sell seed. The Canadian public clearly demanded that genetic resources remain a public good.
Before reintroducing UPOV ‘91 through Bill C-18, Agriculture Minister Ritz has been actively spreading the myth and managing to convince many farm organizations and commodity groups that saving seed is enshrined in this bill. It is obvious that UPOV ‘91 gives plant breeders significantly more “rights “ and tools for royalty collection, while farmers’ seed-saving right is reduced merely to “privilege”. A privilege was typically given to peasants by feudal lords, and could be arbitrarily and unpredictably retracted.
A closer look at the text of Bill C-18 reveals that indeed, it talks about a farmer’s ability to save seed. When storing that saved seed, however, the farmer needs the permission of the holder of the Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) – which may or may not be given. Of course the breeder has the right to charge royalties as well.
Bill C-18 in fact also empowers government to remove, restrict or limit the farmer’s seed-saving privilege by passing regulations, a process that can happen quickly and without public debate.
UPOV ‘91 has many provisions for royalty collection after seed has been harvested, when seed is cleaned in seed cleaning plants or when a crop is moved off the farm for sale at elevators and other points of transaction, in the year seed was harvested or any year after that.
UPOV ’91 confers very similar powers to plant breeders that patents have conferred to developers of genetically modified crops. For example, a farmer seeding a quarter section of a PBR variety of gene-patented canola typically spends $12,000 on seed. Another farmer who managed to find a similar yielding variety of non-GM canola, a variety not yet delisted, typically only spends about $3,200 on seed. If Canada passes Bill C-18 farmers will be increasingly exposed to significantly higher charges for oats, wheat and barley seed or any other seed, similar to what they presently spend on a PBR variety of canola where the variety owners in many cases do not allow any seed saving and steadily ratchet the price of seed upward. The extended royalty enforcement mechanisms laid out in Bill C-18’s changes to our Plant Breeders’ Rights law will rapidly discipline farmers to pay that higher price.
Farmers already pay approximately $100 million in check-off funds for variety development. Besides public funds and the farmer-paid check-off, prairie grain variety development also receives funding from any surplus in the grain transportation revenue cap. The amount that farmers can be charged by rail companies to haul prairie grain to ports is limited by a revenue cap. Any charges over and above that revenue cap are retroactively collected and allocated for prairie grain variety development.
Canadians should reject UPOV ’91 and defeat Bill C-18. Instead, we should reinforce our public plant breeding programs. With the continued allocation of farmer check-off dollars, there will be ample funding for essential variety development. There is absolutely no need to grant transnational plant breeders more tools to remove an excessive amount of money from farmers. Adopting UPOV ‘91 may result in some genetic improvements of crops, but at significantly higher costs than a public-interest breeding system that benefits the whole Canadian economy. The higher seed costs extracted from farmers under UPOV ’91 would fatten profits for Bayer, Monsanto, Dow and Syngenta and other seed and chemical companies headquartered outside of our country.
Jan Slomp, President
National Farmers Union (NFU)
(403) 843-2068
- - - -
Jan Slomp is President of the National Farmers Union. He holistically manages a 65-cow dairy farm near Rimbey, Alberta.