Pedigreed Seed Grower Policy

[parsley]

Let's start with 'system'.

The way it is presently working for agriculture is that research emphasis/$$ is aimed at biotechnology.

BASF/Dow/Syngenta/etc all lobby and beg governments for available research dollars

They have key people in place in each univsersity to enact their private research.

Patent inventions are owned privately via plant breeder's rights, for example, but funded mainly with massive amounts of public money.

Responsibility and liability lies with the taxpayer; the agricultural community,which trickles down to the farmer, not the inventor.

The research information paid for with public dollars is "private".

The reaearch invention paid for with public dollars is "private".

The test results are "private".

Information is "private"

So, many taxpayers view this as wrong.

It is not free enterprise to have public money funding private business, and a regulatory system that wants to "partner" instead of regulate.

Look up the definition of 'publicly funded but privately owned' with regulatory privileges(patent rights).charliep and write it down clearly on your next post.

In one word.

Is it a system you embrace?

Pars

[parsley]

And if the tax credits were applied to both pedigreed seed and farmer owned seed, what would you say, sawfly?

[charliep]

What is the system Canada should embrace? Is the Australian model the right one?

[charliep]

I do note your comments about public and private. From the private investment side, the confusion you talk about is one of the reasons private sector will not invest here in cereal research.

Perhaps the real victom is in developing research capital and human talent. Would a new graduate plant breeder choose canola or wheat as a career path? Where is the money? Perhaps this relates to your theme in the beginning and Canada's policy towards wheat as something different both on the marketing and research side.

[parsley]

Would you agree that government companies, fed by the public tit, with forced participation by the citizens, is communism?

Would you agree that private biotech companies fed by public tax dollars, and sidestepping all responsibility. but with forced regulatory participation (as will GM contamination finally render all farmers captive) is a system all of its' own, too?, What is the definition of that system charliep? Would it be the Moussolini system? Is that that a good model? Because that's where we are headed.

You say, "From the private investment side, the confusion you talk about is one of the reasons private sector will not invest here in cereal research."

There's really no confusion, is there? The private biotech companies openly solicit money from government, who picks winners and losers! BASF courted massive tax dollar grants in the US (cars) with no strings attached!

"Would a new graduate plant breeder choose canola or wheat as a career path? "

Researchers today are choosing dividends.They are not salaried, but instead, shareholders. They will provide any answers that enhance the bottom line(climate data/toyota)

Research should be just that. Research. Paid whether it fails or not.Public data available if public money funds.

Of course you realize I am touchy about food. And if you have ever observed a child with a brain tumor, or an adult with Wegenires, or a neighbor with celiac, most would better understand the point.

IMHO of course, charliep Pars

[charliep]

Again the question - what is the plant breeding model you would suggest?

[sawfly]

a tax credit is inflationary, either way. farmer seed or pedigree.
If the govt. is spending money it should be for the overall health and competitiveness of the whole sector.
not for the benefit of private breeders


A checkoff on bushels sold .
fund public research, distribute at cost.


if someone builds a better mousetrap , it sells ,more power to them.

public varieties keep a lid on seed costs.
without them competition is just an illusion and in the end with a stranglehold on the industry they can make as much as they want.

look at the herbicide industry, charging top dollar for 20 yr. old off patent chemicals. Why because you can't get anything else.

just like 40-50$ seed for an acre of canola.
we gave them the power to steal our profit , because we have no backup plan. no decent public variety .

[parsley]

Free Enterprise charliep.


Free Enterprise charliep.


Free Enterprise charliep.

Not communism..(gov't owned and run)

Not facism (Privately owned but built by tax payers money)


Free Enterprise charliep.How does that sit with you?


Raise your money, get your loans, patent your invention, pocket the profits, but be subject to a country's regulation.

Public dollars goes towards undisturbed unbiased research, with the public accessing the research.


Quite novel, huh? Pars

[parsley]

sawfly,

Would you agree thast if farmers get a tax credit for seed, then greenhouse growers should as well, etc. as why would one sector be eligible and not the other?

Teachers pets.

Otherwise, it's so easy for governments to pick partisan winners and losers unless there is EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY available for all citizens.
Pars

[charliep]

So you are suggesting the US and European system where there is limited
investment in public breeding but everyone pays for the use of privately
developed seed technology via a levy or some other payment for seed
patents (even common seed). Perhaps the tweak is you want you want
political and public review of technology (which I assume is specific to
genetic engineering) in plant breeding.

Do I understand your request?

[charliep]

I might note Canada effectively has the system you have suggested. Why
is there limited private investment in cereal breeding in Canada?

[parsley]

What you wrote is not my view at all.

I recommend more public money towards research. Where researchers can research and be paid instead of having to come up with pre-determined results. Scientists, I am told by actual scientists, are often harassed. And beaten into the line that is required. Toyota. Climatologists.Gawd,I keep repeating.

Tax money should NOT NOT NOT be lavished upon a few chosen corporations.

Corporations should be able to raise money as did much of the computer industry.Venture capital.

What is happening, is a few corps like Syngenta and BASF and Dow etc are eating up our available research dollars, may patent the inventions, use the universities as their research/delivery systems, but retain ownership of any intellectual property,

All so they can develop drought resistant sorghum to grow in say, the dessert area of Africa while getting a grant from the African government for irrigation in order to grow massive amounts of grain to export, so Canadian farmers don't have to export to Africa any more.

Yes, well. I can't wait for higher deductions to contribute towards strategy like that. Pars