The Rural Voice, 1981-04, Page 7those whose employment is in peril
because of the proposed legislation -
agricultural workers and researchers in
the public sector - to be spearheading the
opposition. That, however. is not the
case. In fact. the proposed changes are
welcomed by three professors at the
University of Guelph's school of crop
sciences (or they at least see the changes
as having little effect) along with Pat
Lynch. soil and crops specialist with the
Stratford OMAF office.
"In essence. plant breeders rights is
not going to change very much in the
Canadian situation," explained Tony
Hunt. who is in charge of the wheat
program at Guelph. "It really makes no
difference one way or the other, so I can't
get really excited against it or get really
excited for it. It could just be a storm in a
teacup."
While Prof. Hunt. along with support
from university associates, Prof. Ed
Gamble and Prof. Lyn Kannenburg
suggests breeders' rights may be a
non -issue, Miller remains far from sat-
isified. "If it won't mean changes," he
asked, "then why bother changing it?"
Prof. Gamble. clearly frustrated by the
slowness with which breeders rights has
crept towards being passed as legislation
since introduced by Agriculture Minister
Eugene Whelan in 1977. considers much
of the opposition to be a tool of political
expediency. Still, in spite of his frus-
tration, he keep abrasive attacks on
opponents at a minimum, although he's
one of the most outspoken figures in the
public sector supporting breeders' rights.
"They've (opponents to the legislation)
never taken the trouble to learn anything
about the subject," said the seed
researcher in his university office. "In my
way of thinking, If I'm going to fight an
issue, 1 research it first."
Bob Allan, a Brucefield farmer and a
director on the Ontario Seed Growers'
Association, who sees only minor dif-
ficulties with breeder's rights, agrees
with Prof. Gamble. "Any of the real
opposition I've seen is using unfounded
facts."
Prof. Gamble's comment deserves
consideration especially in light of some
of the attacks aimed at the opponents of
breeders' rights. In one article in a farm
publication the writer's expressed pur-
pose was to provide information to help
farmers understand the issue. The in-
formation, however, was prefaced with
remarks describing breeders' rigths op-
ponents as "environmental groupies,
political radicals, professional do-gooders
and tired old religious organizations
seeking a quick fix to rejuvenate their
declining influence." He referred to the
protest as "knee-jerk" and to their
arguments as "meaningless claptrap."
Attempts to mask editorial comment in
a guise of balanced writing not only fail to
serve the public interest, they also drive a
broader wedge between the two
competing sides. The language does. at
least. illustrate how the issue can develop
into a bitter battle.
Within the farm community itself, as
well. breeders' rights have received
mixed treatment. The National Farmers'
Union (NFU) has been at the forefront of
the agressive attack on the proposed
legislation. The Canadian Federation of
Agriculture (CFA) is taking a more
moderate approach, and will accept
breeders' rights if certain provisions are
changed in the legislation.
Yet while national organizations are
lobbying for the interests of their
members, the issue appears to have
filtered down to individuals in the farm
community only in small amounts. "I
don't think the average person is aware of
the inherent dangers," suggested Miller.
His assessment could be correct, but it
may turn out farmers generally don't
consider the changes as dangerous as
Miller hints they could be. Or if they are
concerned, the worry is not strong
enough to mobilize them to action, for or
against.
Though they perceive the dispute
Breeders' Rights: the points of dispute
Several areas of dispute over the proposed breeders' rights legislation exist. Here is a brief sketch of key issues and the
positions of the opponents and supporters.
Opponents: Breeders' rights will give large. multinational
corporations an opportunity to increase profits at the expense of
farriers by permitting them to collect royalties on seeds they
develop.
Opponents: They contend with breeders' rights legislation we
will move further and further away from the genetic base of the
world's basic food crops. And because they are profit oriented,
companies will not be concerned with stocking a world germ
plasm bank.
Opponents: Private breeders, with concern for profit, will
direct their efforts to producing high yield, fast -maturing seeds,
but will not pay attention to controlling for disease.
Oppdnents: Explain that. under the present system where
there is no economic competition. there is a free exchange of
germ plasm between public and private breeders. With breeders
rights. however. that free flow will be inhibited.
Opponents: Hold that the rights would provide a situation
where companies could establish monopolies.
Supporters: They generally agree prices may go up, but at the
same time farmers will be getting better seed 'guaranteeing
higher yields and ultimately higher profits for them as well.
Corporate profits would more likely be turned back into research
and development whereas now profit from public research is
dispensed throughout the government; not all is returned to
public breeding programs.
Supporters: Say, in fact. such rights would widen the germ
plasm supply base. In addition, while private breeders can pay
attention to developing seed for market, this will free public
agencies to concentrate on far-sighted research. which would
include developing the bank.
Supporters: Reply the competitive market system itself has
built-in safeguards which could ' penalize' the producers of
inferior breeds. In effect, the cream will rise to the top which, in
the end. will benefit farmers.
Supporters: Suggest that, except with prime materials,
companies will be willing to exchange the plasm. Dr.
Kannenburg at Guelph explained most researchers in the private
sector are former students and co-workers, and because of that
he has no hesitation in asking for an exchange of genetic
material.
Supporters: Say protection against this possibility will be
found in both the legislation and in the Canada Seed Act.
THE RURAL VOICE/APRIL 1981 PG. 5