New information revealed regarding OUI changes if not Disbandment

[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