The Rural Voice, 1981-04, Page 6Seed patents: the fight for rights
Scrapping over seeds, the only path to settlement is through discussion
•R
hn ,llillc r
If it vcm't change anything, theft vv/,v bother changing it?
PG. 4 THE RURAL VOICE/APRIL 1981
BY HERB SHOVELLER
When he discusses breeders' rights.
Joe Miller's face tightens and he strains
to find the proper words. Often he stops
mid -sentence and begins his comment
again, not because what he is saying
might be wrong, but because it must be
stated in the best possible way. The
hesitance comes from his opposition to
breeders' rights, legislation which would
give private plant breeders the right to
collect royalties on new seed strains they
develop. (Unlike in other industries. plant
breeders can not patent their develop-
ments). By lining up against the proposed
legislation Miller's argument is more
philosophical than practical. In a dis-
cussion he will. of course. offer practical
comments to defend his position. but to
him they pale in comparison to what he
perceives is the crux of the controversy.
"It's like foreign ownership. To me it is
as much a moral issue as anything" noted
the Dashwood area farmer.
Miller's is an insightful comment. Not
only does it outline the basis of
opponents' arguments to breeders'
rights, it also suggests the reason the
debate defies resolution. If the argument
is a moral one. as Miller contends, then
the only path to settlement is through
discussion. Ethical battles seldom pro-
duce widely accepted answers. If it is not
a moral matter. and supporters of
breeders' rights don't perceive it as such,
then solution lies in practically weighing
the pros and cons.
A moral argument uses hazy.
subjective calculations. Objective facts
are all that the practical argument needs.
Between the two there is often no
common ground. They approach con-
troversy on different levels and almost by
definition never meet. That means.
regardless of the outcome of the
breeders' rights issue there will have to
be a loser. and indications are Miller and
the other opponents will be the ones who
involuntarily concede.
Perhaps the most telling illustration of
the inevitability of breeders' rights
legislation is. ironically. found in the
public sector. Opponents to breeders'
rights worry that funding for public
research will eventually dry up if the
present guidelines are altered . or that
their study will be restricted to obscure.
time-consuming investigations which will
only. in the end. benefit private breeders.
If the criticism is valid, one should expect