Partners in Innovation Support PBR Amendments at Committee

[gustgd]

Ottawa, Thursday October 9, 2014 – Partners in Innovation delivered a strong message of support for amendments to Canada’s Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) legislation when representatives met with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food today.
Partners in Innovation is a coalition of 20 provincial, regional and national organizations representing the vast majority of farmers and most of the crop production in Canada. Coalition members represent producers and value chains in grains, oilseeds, pulse crops and fruits and vegetables in all provinces. They have joined together to support amendments to Plant Breeders’ Rights as proposed in Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act.
Mark Brock, a corn and soybean producer from Ontario underscored the breadth of support for the proposed amendments: “All of the participants in the coalition couldn’t be here for this presentation but from coast to coast and from crop to crop they have provided strong reasons for supporting PBR amendments. We need these amendments to ensure that farmers have access to new and improved varieties developed in Canada and internationally.” According to Mr. Brock, “We just have to look at the exciting new developments that have happened since the legislation was introduced; from the sod turning on a new cereal research centre in western Canada to the announcements of partnerships between Canadian companies and international breeders, all predicated on updated PBR legislation; to see the gains that we stand to make.”
David Jones, from the potato and horticultural sectors, spoke about the importance of PBR amendments to his industry and addressed the common misconceptions of the proposed amendments. Mr. Jones made it clear that: “Plant Breeders’ Rights are not patents. The legislation will not automatically implement end point royalties. Whether it is called a farmers’ privilege or anything else, the important thing is that the ability for farmers to save, produce, reproduce and condition seed is entrenched in this legislation and cannot be taken away without a legislative change. Public sector plant breeders will benefit from amended PBR. 48% of the varieties protected by PBR are from public institutions, and history shows that Plant Breeders’ Rights have not accelerated seed price increases. “
Partners in Innovation was very pleased to have the opportunity to meet with the Standing Committee and urges all parties to support these important amendments in order to benefit Canadian farmers and the agriculture industry.
You can find the speaking notes on the Partners in Innovation website.

[CptnObvious]

-We now operate under UPOV 78 which generally allows the habit of farmer saved seed. UPOV 91( in Bill C-18), in the section referred to in the margin notes as 'farmer's privilege' gives greater legal rights to patent holders and significantly restricts that habit. Strict interpretation of the new law could even mean that farmers may plant their own (patented) harvest only once.
-Now farmers, not just seed sellers, will be punishable for unauthorized crop production. It is not written that the farmer must have known he is in breach of UPOV 91.
-Cabinet may change the rules whenever the heck they want.
-End point royalties will be much easier to implement, giving seed companies a far greater revenue stream( from us).
-Royalties may be cumulative( read 'always getting bigger') because they will now apply to all varieties derived from a protected variety.

I know of no circumstance where a Canadian plant breeder is prevented from getting genetic material he wants under UPOV 78.

The Conservatives very fond wish is to take all money from lower income Canadians not necessary for immediate survival and give it to very wealthy shareholders. We will pay more for seed as we now pay more to elevate and sell grain.

[bucket]

If the same group of people are championing this cause that worked on the open market, I would be very cautious. They didn't ensure the open market was implemented to the benefit of farmers. Somehow I would think they could be negligent again.

[sawfly]

at one time the the idea of patents
was that the law would protect owners /inventors. for a certain period of
time.
in return for this protection ,
at some point patents were to expire.
so the society that provided that protection would benefit too.

this also encouraged new innovation,
because patents would expire.

now this back door method ,
ends up locking things up forever.
license to use agreements
etc. etc.

this will stifle innovation.

no need to make something new
when no one else can ever copy or reproduce.
patent expired or not.
your product will never go generic.

you can cut R&D and still extract every $ from the market.

And if you think the Chinese , will
come and save us , and break the cartel
of seed co.s
not gonna happen

thru regulation

the same outfits have successfully
kept us from accessing generic chems
15-20 years after patents expire.

yes all us farmers are dieing to pay a seed breeder more $ an acre ,than the land rent will be.
yes pbr does not restrict right to
replant, but what canola var. after 25
years ,does anyone here , have the right to plant.
the only one i can think of
is
46a76,

one out of a thousand varieties
i would not call one in 1000 a right.

the whole thing is a load of crap

[grassfarmer]

Bucket a sign of that negligence may be that Partners in Innovation endorsed the legislation even before its text became public. Do you think that allowed them to discuss, analyze and consult affected parties before giving their backing?

Read more on Partners in Innovation "a fake grassroots group" at;
http://www.nfu.ca/issue/what-behind-partners-innovation-pr-campaign

[oneoff]

I think its time to go be sick again.

[chuckChuck]

The pulse industry in western canada has done very well with its model of variety development largely paid for and controlled by farmers.

Why any farmer thinks that large seed and chemical companies have the interest of farmers first is beyond me.

If your going to pay alot for seed and variety development why would you hand all the decision making power over to large multinational corporations who will extract the maximum profit possible at the expense of farmers?

[bucket]

Gust.

Don't take this question the wrong way.

I notice the swdc is not on that list.

If they were interested in representing farmers would it not make sense to be at that table?

Whether it a dissenting voice or not why would they not want to be at the table. ?

[Hopalong]

Perhaps SWDC directors are still stuck in the past and spend time supporting public funded crop research and a wheat board monopoly.
Fits right in with a few persistent AV posters who are firmly fixed in the past.
Fact is that most growers have moved on from the days when we delivered grain to elevators with no agreement or arrangement and took the wheat board or posted price of the day.
Expect similar change in research funding with more of the funding coming from investors.

[bucket]

What exactly are they researching. If it can't get to port or no one wants to buy because Ukraine wheat is cheaper, what's the point in better wheat. We have that and unless it's cheaper no one wants it.

Research is just another way into my back pocket.

Little fed up with higher priced seed but lower prices on my farm.

[CptnObvious]

Check the bios of the successful SWDC candidates. They were all elected with a strong mandate to support public plant breeding. It appears that most farmers agree with bucket on the self-serving nature of large corporations, and the SWDC has an obligation to follow the policies that we voted for.
There is an old Chinese saying, 'To take no action is an action.' The SWDC not joining the 'Partners in Innovation' says that these partners may not hold the interests of farmers paramount as the 'farmer first' SWDC does. Seeing as their absence was noticed this appears to have been successful.

[bucket]

I am not saying it was right or wrong.

But anyone that claims to have farmers interests as their mandate better ****ing well be at the table on my behalf.

I didn't want protesters as a farm voice I want them at the table to voice their concerns.

This only continues the divide and conquer technique.

The partners in innovation seems one sided to the right with the same players involved.

Just an observation. Not debatable.

[sumdumguy]

Chuckchuck, I like the Pulse model too, but lobbying government is the name of the game so farmers be damned.