The Rural Voice, 2005-02, Page 24SEEDS OF CONFUSION
The Canadian Seed Trade Association sags proposed amendments to the
Plant Breeders Rights Act won't change farmers' rights to save seeds for
replanting. But the National Farmers Union claims theg're the beginning of
infringing on farmers' rights and giving more power to seed giants.
By Keith Roulston
Though they haven't even
been introduced in
parliament yet, proposed
amendments to Plant
Breeder's Rights (PBR)
legislation are stirring up
plenty of controversy across
the country.
Led by the National
Farmers Union, concern has
grown that the age-old right of
farmers to save seed from this
year's crop for planting next
year's crop could be in
jeopardy. But seed industry
spokespeople claim this is all a
tempest in a teapot and the
new legislation actually puts
down in the legislation for the
first time the right of farmers
to keep their seed.
Bill Leask, executive vice-
president of the Canadian Seed
Trade Association says the
recommended amendments are
needed to bring Canada in line
with the rules currently
adopted by most countries that
are signatories to the
convention of the International
Union for. the Protection of
New Varieties of Plants.
Canada's current PBR
legislation dates back to the
1978 protocol of this
organization, he says, but 58
other countries have since adopted an
updated 1991 set of rules. If Canada
is to attract its share of important
plant breeding research it must adopt
the rules protecting breeders that
these other countries work under,
Leask says.
Most of the prosposed
amendments are "housekeeping", he
says and are not important to a buyer
of seed or farmer.
But the NFU kicked off the debate
last May shortly after the Seed Sector
Questions remain about what amendments to the Plant
Breeders Rights legislation would mean for farmers'
ancient right to keep their own seed. - R.R. sauows photo
courtesy OMAF
Review report was issued when it
posted a document called "Nine
Things Farmers need to know about
the Seed Sector Review."
When proposed PBR
amendments, based on that review,
were unveiled last fall, the NFU
called a news conference prior to its
national convention to strongly
object to the proposed changes. The
NFU warned that PBR Act changes
"are just one part of a larger seed
system overhaul that will heap
20 THE RURAL VOICE
restrictions and costs onto
farmers."
The NFU claimed the
changes would bestow new
rights on transnational seed
companies, including longer
royalty periods and the power
to seize crops if farmers can't
prove they paid seed royalties.
At the same time, new PBR
legislation might give farmers
a limited, short-term privilege
to save and re -use their own
seed.
The NFU said the legislation
talked about "rights" for
companies like Monsanto and
"privilege" for farmers who
save seed and claimed the
proposals were "offensive and
turn reality on its head".
NFU Vice -President Terry
Boehm said "The protection
from competition we grant to
these corporate non -persons is
a privilege, granted so that we,
as citizens, may realize certain
outcomes for the public good.
The monopoly protection in
our PBR and patent acts is not
a corporate right. And saving
and re -using seed is not a
farmer privileg".
Boehm claimed the
medium-term goal is clear: end
farmers rights to save and re-
use their seeds. "The proposed PBR
Act changes would grant
corporations the key powers they
need to stop farmers from re -using
seeds. The changes would clearly
outlaw seed saving and grant
corporations powerful new
enforcement tools. The proposal is
to possibly give farmers an
exemption that would allow limited
seed saving and re -use. But farmers
who have watched as patents,
contracting, and Plant Breeders