The Rural Voice, 1981-04, Page 8differently, both Miller and Lynch agree
on one point. "Most farmers don't realize
what's going on in this." said Lynch.
Reluctance of farmers to get involved is
in some ways understandable. On the
surface the breeders' rights controversy
may appear straightforward. but as
discussion continues with more charges
and rebuttals, the subject's clarity begins
to fade.
Unlike a typical debate, however,
where each side has an opportunity to
give its arguments and defend its
position. breeders' rights opponents arc
almost exclusively on the attack. which
places the supporters continuously in the
position of having to defend themselves.
There are several key areas of dispute
with the breeders' rights legislation, the
most prominent perhaps being concern
about a possible deterioration in seed
quality once the legislation is passed.
"My concern is they'll only come out
with a high yielding variety. and not be
concerned with disease." explained
Miller. a white bean producet and NFU
member. "The private breeder's concern
is in high yielding varieties and early
maturing varieties. They're only
concerned with dollar signs."
But what Miller sees as a necessary
evil of the system - the profit incentive - is
not a valid criticism to rights' supporters.
"There's more arguing going on about
that every year," is Pat Lynch's reply. "If
only farmers knew how well protected
they are! The things (new seeds) have
more barriers to cross; we just have to
keep the same high standards."
And while Prof. Gamble views profit
incentive as a means to a greater number
of better seeds, rather than as encourage-
ment to abuse. his is a more aggressive
defence. "When it really comes down to
it, there are not many farmers farming
because it is a way of life. It's just as
legitimate for a company to make a profit
as it is for a farmer."
Indeed, a profit incentive is. supporters
of breeders' rights say. just the shot in
the arm needed to rejuvenate the seed
industry in Canada. "The biggest fact
that will keep all this in shape is the
competitive factor," continued Gamble.
"The more companies we can get
establishing their programs in Canada.
the more varieties will be developed."
In fact, the absence of breeders' rights
legislation in Canada is a reason
companies are cautious about setting up
programs here. Legislation similar to that
proposed here is in effect in several
European countries. as well as in the
United Kingdom and the United States.
Because of the legal provisions. plants
PG. 6 THE RURAL VOICE/APRIL 1981
Prof: Tony Hunt
teacup. •'
a storm 111
a
bred in those countries are protected
where there is similar legislation, but not
in Canada. This protection. the right to
patent. gives the breeder control over the
Ili t
Prof Ed Gamble: Competition will keep
breeding in line.
reproductive material he develops.
including multiplication and sales.
Through that protection he is entitled to
collect royalties. Canadian companies
selling at home, however. and foreign
companies considering selling in Canada,
under present law. have no such control.
That explains the reluctance of foreign
breeders to release their varieties here.
"Without breeders' rights companies
in other countries will not always ex-
change germ plasm," explained OMAF's
Lynch. "Take the colored bean. We don't
have a colored bean here, and no colored
bean seeds are produced here so we have
to go outside Canada to get it. But the
other countries are reluctant to come to
Canada."
The introduction of the rights.
supporters say, would break down that
barrier and in the long run could benefit
agriculture in Canada. In an example.
Prof. Hunt noted "the Maritimes," with
a climate unique in the Canadian
situation. "could take advantage of
research in European countries" which
have similar weather patterns. Prof.
Gamble added the information exchange
could benefit farming in British Columbia
and Northern Ontario as well.
While opponents to the legislation
don't deny changes could benefit
Canadian agriculture. they would
challenge it as accepting short-term gain
for long -tern woe.
They fear with frenzied competitive
breeding. the genetic base of the world's
food crops would be seriously diminish-
ed. In a position paper the NFU notes the
danger is already present without Bill
C-32 (the proposed legislation). and its
passing will only hasten further break-
down. In addition, private breeders.
anxious to protect their products.
opponents say. will be hesitant to
contribute to the development and
maintenance of the germ plasm bank
which holds the genetic sources of the
globe's basic plants whose origins are in
the Vavilov Centres - pockets of less than
one-quarter of the world's arable land,
usually close to the equator. As plants
have been bred to adapt to other climates
they have moved further and further
away from their Vavilov roots, the parent
seeds of most of the earth's food crops.
Opponents say breeders' rights vv ill move
us even further away. and those basic
plants may, ultimately. be lost to man for
ever.
"That's a lot of poop, complete
nonsense." replied Lynch. "If we don't
go to breeders' rights we will lose germ
plasm. There is no logical argument that
shows there will be a depletion of germ
plasm. We will always have those germ
plasm banks. If you look at corn. we have
more strains of corn, more individual
germ plasm banks than with other
crops."
The corn experience is a common
Cont. on page 30