New information revealed regarding OUI changes if not Disbandment

[oneoff]

I followed the Clearout 41 Plus story closely in the days when it was available through the PMRA OUI (Own Use Import) program. This extraordinarily successful program brought some competition to the glyphosate market and surely it can't be argued that prices declined substancially. In fact it was so successful that a whole lot of the industry; collaborators and the government decided to change the program.
All the reports I read indicated that the GROU program that was to replace the OUI for crop protection products; and was enacted to provide an improved selection of products; provide an empty container collection program; reduce government paperwork in administration and generally provide an even better program offering farmers more chemical purchase options. Of course it didn't work out that way; and all we did was lose OUI.
Today one of our self admitted Champions of the voice of farmers; a member of numerous groups speaking on behalf of farmers; none other than our own "wd9" posted these revealing statements
Begin quote
"wd9 posted Jul 16, 2010 12:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUI was illegal and it allowed stealing of intellectual property. It had to change. The initial meetings had more lawyers than regulators. It was scary. Specific example was allowing clearout in by stealing all the reg data from monsanto to prove it was safe. This was not right." END QUOTE
Too bad he; or our other spokepersons or negotiators hadn't spread that far and wide at the time. No wonder farmers lose battles; with leadership like that; its collaboration and agreement without any trace of a strong fight.
OUI was a government approved program that FNA (also previous groups and ordinary farmers) spent years to get approval for a generic glyphosate). The Federal government; PMRA and Health Canada took years before they accepted the generic glyphosate under the OUI program. Years later (as in a few hours ago) we learn it was all based on stolen reg data from monsanto; and OUI had to change; this was not right etc. We were soldout. This isn't right; and that weak analysis explains whose hands we are in.

[oneoff]

Here's a June 2007 press release from FNA. It sort of proves they knew the wd9's of the world.
Begin quote

"Be clear that a great majority of farm organizations support OUI and the number of organizations that joined the PMRA-CropLife Alliance is very small. However many they are, they need to either deliver on the promises or be held accountable why not. It cannot be good enough to say they didn't get what they expected, or that they were misled, or that it's the government's fault for moving too slow, or that the chemical companies have decided to focus on seed so there is no room for improvement on chemicals. They may have these and a much bigger list of excuses ready for the eventuality that there is no competitive product once OUI has been suspended. But they cannot claim they didn't know better. They were warned, explained to, cajoled and even mildly harassed to try to see the issue through the eyes of an active farm family who could lose tens of thousands of dollars. They knew. FNA delivered two thick reports full of detail to almost every farm organization in Canada. They knew. End Quote
In my research so far; there has not been one slightest inkling of allegations of stolen data or something wrong.. My first guess is that once you submit data to the federal government; it automatically becomes public knowledge; but hardly stolen when you attempt to repeat it. Sounds like a traitor in someone else's camp.

[sawfly]

thanks for post.
what is going on?
what have i missed?
there is too much money to be made
by big chem co.s shutting out generics.
is there something in the works trying to destroy what little access we have.

[TOM4CWB]

One;

' My first guess is that once you submit data to the federal government; it automatically becomes public knowledge'.

That was the whole point of what WD9 was trying to tell you. YOU ARE WRONG.

If you spent $5M getting a product registered... and someone else used your work to import a simular product... not even exactly the same...

You would be getting lawyers and going after the gov. too... if this happened to you... wouldn't you?!

I can buy generic glyphos for under $3/L... from a Canadian retailer.

How can you claim our system rips you off?

More and different chems are being allowed in. NOT a failure by any stretch. We are getting chems that have approved registration data for both US and CAN. comming on stream that avoids this problem. That is the goal... lower the cost of regulation. Face it... FNA was/is not a farmer bringing in own use chem not for resale.

[oneoff]

Come on Tom: Just because Canadian cheapest glyphosate is now $3.00 doesn't mean $8.00 to $11.00 per US gallon isn't considerably cheaper if it were available. That doesn't necessarily make Canadian glyphosate a bargain.
As for your opinions about how FNA stole Monsanto's data; that just doesn't make sense. It was the PMRA; a government entity no less; that carefully scrutinized the application. If something was done illegally I'm sure that OUI for glyphosate would have been shut down in an instant. Monsanto and the PMRA would surely have seen to that.
No your comment doesn't yet convince me one bit; and I will surely attempt to find the truth of the matter. I also invite you to back up your opinion with some independent or PMRA documents that support your charges.
Similarly; wd9's comment about a room full of lawyers and it being "scary" at the meetings to decide OUI's fate wouldn't have struck fear in my heart.
I never felt I was stealing "intellectual property" when I used the OUI import program. Throngs of farmers imported millions of liters of glyphosate. And that option was taken away. Just how many farmers have found GROU to be a benefit.
As to insinuating that glyphosate is so cheap that it proves the system is working well; just remember back a year when everyone was being hosed because of the supposed shortage of glyphosate. Well we had GROU at that time and it sure didn't help glyphosate prices; and the other list of GROU chemicals simply didn't/doesn't help any of my application.
FNA members and supporters; as well as other OUI importers must surely have some ccomments on this matter.
The wd9 post is a classic just like vader's rant on selfish and greedy durum producers. On this sellout of OUI a person gets labelled a loser; ignorant etc. etc along with insinuations of association with a company involved in theft of intellectual property. The author even decides that we are guilty with the "This is wrong" statement.
Wrong interpretation for a product whose patent had expired. Lets see your proof because I no longer trust your opinions.

[oneoff]

Tom You spend saay $5 million to get a product registered. You also may get a patent and are entitled to a period of patent protection. After that patent expires; the rules change.
You say I'm wrong. Well I have yet to see else make that accusation that anyone stole Monsanto's data. Give me a lead on that story so I may begin to investigate that accusation.

[oneoff]

This from IDEA (independent Dealers; Saskatoon) is probably a good summary from the chemical industry standpoint

"The OUI Program was implemented in 1993 and was intended to help Canadian farmers gain
direct access to American products when special needs arise. Under the OUI Program, a registered
product in the United States can be imported for personal use and is exempt from registration in Canada
under the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) if two conditions are met: (1) the product must be
chemically equivalent to a Canadian registered product and (2) the product must have an approved label
that is equivalent to a Canadian registered product."

In Feb 2005 FNA's application for Clearout 41 Plus into the OUI program was accepted.

Note that once "equivalency" was proven that the die was cast in the OUI program.

As such; I believe the accusations and crap that wd9 has posted regarding stealing intellectual property; and stealing Monsanto's reg data was acquiescing to another's opinion without a trace of a fight. And let them lead the fight if they so wish.

Further; the equivalecy certificate "accepted" by Health Canada for Clearout 41 Plus that I found on an internet search listed not a Monsanto product at all; but was a competitor's glyphosate. This was in 2007 and I have yet to find the "equivalency certificate" for the 2005 period. A Chinese glyphosate application was rejected about 2006.

[TOM4CWB]

Oneoff,

I never once said one word about Monsanto.

FNA is not an individual farmer using the chem on their own farm.

Take off the NFU/NDP glasses for a moment!

[wd9]

Chemistries need to be registered to be used in Canada. OUI was legislation for very special short term extremely small amounts. Not millions of litres.

Guess it was just too simple for some to understand.

Oneoff, you are exhausting.

[oneoff]

Thank you for the "exhausting" compliment. I know thats about the closest I'll ever come to not being a loser.
All I'm saying is that its not unlike the Crow Rate issue. You have a deal with someone; eg. the railways or the chemical industry like happened with OUI. For years they pillage you and finally some courageous people find a way (or circumstances change such that 1 cent a ton mile is a bargain). Then the buggers pretend that somehow it is farmers fault and they use their substancial power to take your infrequent moment of good fortune away. As farmers we are so brainwashed that they have way too easy a time convincing us it is in our best interest to let them have their way.
PS You guys are so far off base in your assumptions about me that even you would be suprised.

Bye forever. There is no more "oneoff"

[dave4441]

Tom is correct, OUI was a dead horse. The companies were going to sue PMRA for property right enfringement and the thing was going in the courts or be killed first. GROU was negotiated to replace it.

It did not really matter as all ClearOut supply was controlled by FNA. A individual farmer could no longer bring it across the border. They had the supply and they charged just less than the competition did in Canada. They claim that they charge a membership fee and you pay cost, but it is completely crap. THEY ARE A CHEMICAL COMPANY.

So what would anyone want to save out of this program? PMRA was no longer willing to issue new OUI products due to threat of legal action.

[wd9]

And so today we have a system where this year i sprayed with several generics. All registered. All legal. All intellectual properties and ownership respected. Also, future generics will be available and registered. People zip across the border and pick up Axial and fungicides etc for whatever price they want.

Seems ok in the end.

[TOM4CWB]

Oneoff,

I have said it many times... the competition board and federal government encourage near monopolies in the supply side of agriculture... so the profits they extract can be taxed.

Few farmers pay even fewer taxes.

Instead our governments tax those concentrated industries that supply farmers and produce food... and instead get the tax money through the back door.

We live with this fact of life... take the risk we do... because we enjoy growing good food for a hungry world!

A healthy way to bring up a family and serve our community!

[dave4441]

Good point WD9. Part of the what we obtained as farmers when OUI was killed was a relaxed generic system that is quicker and cheaper so we can have a true generic system like the US. These regulations will take time to fully impact our bottom lines, but it is all moving in the right direction.

[ward.toma]

Every application to market a crop
protection product requires a safety
data package. Companies marketing
generics in Canada purchase it from the
owner of the original patent, even if
it’s come off patent, as it is less
costly than producing the data. There
are longstanding international treaties
that ensure the protection of this data.
As legal action was pending at the time,
the PMRA never confirmed to the Alberta
Canola Producers Commission if FNA’s
application under the OUI program did
not include the required data package or
included it without Monsanto’s
permission. Regardless, PMRA admitted
it approved the initial application in
violation of its own rules and this
error let FNA import the product with
reduced cost for a short period of time.
The low price of the FNA product on the
market followed. This error caused the
PMRA to end the OUI program, eventually
replacing it with the GROU program.

The purpose of the OUI and the
subsequent GROU program was to address
differential pricing of equivalent
product in Canada and the US so that the
difference did not exceed the cost of
movement. These programs were never
designed to deliver the absolute
cheapest product to farmers. PMRA’s
error exposed just a small portion of
the huge regulatory burden that farmers
pay for. Reduced regulatory cost while
still maintaining safety is something
all farm groups constantly advocate for.

Ward Toma
General Manager
Alberta Canola Producers Commission