Farmers right to control seeds

[Oliver88]

Can someone please answer the following questions....

1. Who is responsible for dud varieties?

2. Who pays for **** ups like the tiffid flax fiasco?

3. What happens if the suppliers of seed are the same ones that buy grain and say they only accept their varieties?
I don't think companies should be able control the entire chain.

4. How does a farmer recoup his costs on this tax?

5. Who oversees that we receive value for the charges..or benchmarks where we are at today? And where we end up?

6. Who says we need more varieties with higher yield or quality? Customers are not buying higher volumes or quality.....

#1. Farmer
#2. Farmer
#3. The farmer will pay the price.
#4. LOL he doesn’t.....recouping costs. 😂
#5. Nobody.

#6. Seed industry.
Not many farmers without investments in the seed industry.
Not customers.

#6 is the key question. When did this idea come from to greatly increase new cereal varieties?
It seems like a blatant money grab by a corrupt industry.

[bucket]

#1. Farmer
#2. Farmer
#3. The farmer will pay the price.
#4. LOL he doesn’t.....recouping costs. 😂
#5. Nobody.

#6. Seed industry.
Not many farmers without investments in the seed industry.
Not customers.

#6 is the key question. When did this idea come from to greatly increase new cereal varieties?
It seems like a blatant money grab by a corrupt industry.

Thank you...I thought I might be the only one. ...

[bucket]

Minister of agriculture of any level should represent farmers...as in primary producers....

If the seed industry wants to have their own minister go to the minister of industry or minister of the seed trade....seems large enough and enough power to brown bag a few ministers at different levels...

Farmers, as in primary producers , have been incredibly under represented for the past decade...this is just another nail for guys to take their equity and say **** it.....so another consolidation can happen...

Now everyone I talk to that is supposed to represent me by my numerous check offs ....tell me to do the heavy lifting and go to meetings.....I thought I was paying smarter and calmer people than me to represent my interests...

All I see is royalties with no responsibility.....The oil companies had royalties and yet the bill for cleanup of abandoned wells comes back to the taxpayer....

No different here the ****ing mess these seed companies will make will come back to primary producers...been there done that...

[sawfly1]

Remember when glyphosate was 25$ a litre.
Which people paid ,eventually dropping to 18-12-9-
Just before patent expiry.
Now we are at 4$.
They were rewarded for their investment.

Now glyphosate resistant canola. Should have followed a similar path. Original patent of 15 years ,expired 10 -15 years ago.
Have not seen a price drop , have you?

Something is wrong.
States/ govt.s / we the people . by law protect innovation.
From theft .copying.

In return for that protection . The innovation eventually.
Becomes pubic property. To the benefit of all.
That part of the deal is
Not happening.

So what is the deal now ?

Any innovation ,inventions will never go public and owners can charge a royalty till the end of time.

If that were the case in history.
That wheel guy would own the planet by now.

Kinda sounds like what they are going for.
Doesn't it.

What could possibly go wrong .
giving 3 of the largest
Corporations on earth .the right to own and control all
The seeds on the planet forever.

That would be one scary movie.

With the corporate police , destroying crops.
Hunting down the underground farmers .for trying to replant a seed from 2001.
A seed that was supposed to have been eradicated
10 years ago.
When the rest were

Same idea as Triffid .
But a good seed instead.

Can not have that seed floating around.
Farmers and consumer's , will begin to think
They do not have to pay our tolls.
Then a revolution.

[farmaholic]

When I replace an old half ton with a new one with all the supposed new and improved bells and whistles....I only have to pay for that truck once....I don't have to pay the maker a yearly fee to drive it.

I also don't want to be the SeedCos research and developement department....meaning varieties released early before fully proven.

I also don't want to pay for SeedCos to develop varieties that I have to continue to pay for over and over again to use while some other areas of the world may well have FREE access to....where there is no way for them to collect their ransom.

[walterm]

When you buy certified seed is there not some R&D built into that price also after farmers already paid check off $ that go to seed companies? Would royalties mean that check offs end?

[bucket]

Canada is an easy place to come for these seed companies because primary producers are basically ignored as an economic driver , however it is a cash cow for anything coming onto the farm because everything is priced somewhere else even though it is produced here...

And no one is looking out for our interests only asking for or taking money on the loosely held principle that they will look out for our interests ...spew here

[wd9]

t.

Now glyphosate resistant canola. Should have followed a similar path. Original patent of 15 years ,expired 10 -15 years ago.
Have not seen a price drop , have you?

Expires 2021. Still patented till then.

[furrowtickler]

Tom 4cwb is still smiling about this

[MBgrower]

Expires 2021. Still patented till then.

when rr1 ready expired on beans a few years ago, all seed cos eliminated theses varieties and only sold the patent protected rr2 varieties, this will continue as we move to rr3, rr4 etc. bottom line, dont wait for generic off patent seed.

[Riley500]

So "our" check-off commissions have the money to develop some farmer-owned varieties. Why not get them to go ahead and do it?

[sawfly1]

WD. As I understand it .
And I grew it the first year.
It was 15 years .
What happened was , part of the process of inserting the gene was not patented originally.
Many years later the process was
Patented , effectively adding another 13 years.

15 years was the patent length
Back then.
Seed Co.s have got govt.s to
Bump that up to ? 21-23 years.
FOR newer stuff.
That is bad enough.
But the user agreements
Licence , to use and , never own .

Really that is the way around ,
A 23 year patent.
A lot of lawyers , a lot of contracts. De register the seed long before the patent expiry.

They know exactly what they are
Doing.
If you believe the fairy tale
That we will have access to even
30 year old seeds .
You are dreaming.

They keep tighting the noose,
And we keep buying the big lie.

Suckers

[sawfly1]

Another thing
Do not give 1 inch in giving up the
Pubic breeding, we have left.
Even if you do not like what they have to offer.
If they are gone . And eventually we wake up ,and decide
We are really getting hosed.
There could be no way to bring
Public breeding back.
You would probably be in breech of the Free Trade Agreement.
And to do so
The government would have to
Compensate the seed Co.s. .
For lost future profits.
Imagine what that bill
Would be

[wd9]

Sawfly, It was rule changes between first to file and first to patent in Canada. One of the many patents that got very long periods of time due to the changes.

Tinfoil not required, no big conspiracy, Canola was unique as soy and corn have long passed off patent.

Seems the big jump away from RR1 soy came from the extend trait, less so with RR2Yield.

Why hasn't farm organizations taken over the RR1 bean seed opportunity? Could it be that farmers are either too lazy, don't really care about seed prices that much, or in fact just want the latest and greatest while complaining about the price?

[chuckChuck]

KAP has no position on proposed seed royalty options yet
Delegates raise concerns about higher seed costs ahead of the first consultation meeting in Winnipeg Friday

https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news-opinion/news/kap-has-no-position-on-proposed-seed-royalty-options-yet/?utm_source=GFM+Publications&utm_campaign=42c3111e 22-Manitoba+Co-operator+daily+enews+Nov+16%2C+2018&utm_medium=ema il&utm_term=0_2da8244677-42c3111e22-88077149

By Allan Dawson FOLLOW
Reporter
Published: November 15, 2018

Minto farmer David Rourke told KAP’s advisory council meeting Nov. 12 he’s reluctant to support one of the two royalty options being proposed when there could be a third option. Rourke said the publicly funding cereal variety development system has served farmers well and said he’s skeptical about how much more value the private sector can deliver. Photo: Allan Dawson

The Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP) is still working out its position on a proposal for seed companies to collect more royalties from farmers on cereal seed, which proponents say will aid farmers by encouraging more variety development.

Meanwhile, the first of the federal government’s four consultation meetings on the proposal is being held at the Delta Hotel In Winnipeg Nov. 16.

“By the time we (KAP) have a decision the policy will be made,” Dauphin farmer Don Dewar said at KAP’s advisory council meeting here Nov. 12 while resolutions on royalties and plant breeders’ rights were debated.

KAP president Bill Campbell said in an interview later he will attend the meeting with an open mind and gather information KAP members can use to form a position.

KAP president Bill Campbell.photo: Allan Dawson

“This is potentially a volatile issue with regards to taking a stance,” he said.

Traditionally farmers have saved and planted their own seed, Campbell said. But developing improved varieties clearly benefits farmers too, he added.

“So we really have to take a balance approach to this and once again be balanced and sustainable,” Campbell said. “We continually see the erosion of the bottom line in agriculture where everybody takes a bit of us and pretty soon there’s not much meat left on the bone. So we need to be able to address some of these issues so farmers can stay in business.”

After two years of discussions initiated by the Grains Roundtable two seed ‘value creation’ options have emerged — end point royalties and trailing contracts.

If a new royalty is adopted it would only apply to cereal varieties covered under UPOV’91 — updated plant breeders’ rights ratified by Canada in February 2015.

While farmers could still save cereal seed for their own use, it would no longer be free, undermining the value of saving it.

Some farmers also worry to boost revenue seed companies might deregister old varieties forcing farmers to buy seed covered by UPOV’91.

Lowe Farm farmer Butch Harder said KAP needs to take a stand and oppose the proposed royalty options.photo: Allan Dawson

In a 26 to 16 vote, a resolution for KAP to endorse trailing contracts, which would see farmers paying seed companies a per tonne, or per acre payment for the cereal seed saved for planting, was referred to KAP’s grain and oilseeds committee for study.

Dewar, who moved the resolution, stressed Ottawa is consulting on just two options and the status quo isn’t one of them.

The other — an end point royalty farmers would pay whenever they sold cereals crops — would require grain companies to collect the fees, said Wawanesa farmer Simon Ellis, representing the Manitoba Seed Growers Association.

“Ultimately I think the trailing royalty is best for farmers, myself included…,” Ellis said before the resolution was referred to committee. “It would be the most effective way to do it. There would be less administration.”

But several other KAP delegates weren’t so sure.

“I guess I am hesitant to suggest one is better than another when there might be a third option,” said Minto farmer David Rourke, who has been involved in plant breeding through the Western Feed Grain Development Co-op. “Just because there are only two on the table it doesn’t mean that’s what we should support it.”

Somerset farmer Gerry Demare agreed, pointing out KAP does not have a policy on the proposal.

“I don’t think we can support this (resolution) in any fashion,” he said.

The two options would help big seed companies, according to Lowe Farm farmer Butch Harder.

“What we have is like being on death row. Do you want lethal injection or a rope?” he said, sparking laughter among delegates.

Dewar countered saying there are just two options and KAP needs pick one when it attends the consultation meeting Nov. 16.

Although only two options are being discussed, it doesn’t mean one of them will be implemented, Anthony Parker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Commissioner for Plant Breeders’ Rights, said in an email Nov. 1.

“Only after the comprehensive consultations have been concluded, and all views heard, will the government then decide whether or not to pursue regulatory amendments,” he wrote.

KAP delegates continued to express concerns about the royalty options when debating a resolution calling on KAP’s grain and oilseeds committee to analyze the ‘Seed Synergy’ report and provide information and recommendations to the advisory council when it meets in February.

Foxwarren farmer and seed grower George Graham said the proposed royalty changes will cost farmers a lot of money.

“The initial numbers on the UPOV’91 varieties is $20 million (of annual revenue on cereal seed), but that will grow as those (new) varieties come on stream,” he said. “Fifty million (dollars) has been mentioned — sometimes a hundred million. That’s our money. That’s a lot of dough. And we’re already going to face a carbon tax. How much more can we take?”

Rourke said he struggles to see how plant breeders will find much more value in cereal varieties. It’s unlikely they will be hybridized or genetically modified through recombinant DNA, he said.

“Again, the public (cereal breeding) system has served us well,” Rourke said.

The royalty proposal is equivalent to setting up technical use agreements for cereals and forcing farmers to buy new seed every year costing farmers more money, said Stonewall farmer Nick Mathieson, who was representing the Manitoba Flax Growers Association.

“When you go buy a brand new car you’re not paying on year two, year three, year four for the rights to drive that car,” he said. “You’ve already paid for it when you bought the car.

Farmers aren’t stupid. If the product is better down the road (they will buy it.)

“Let us have the choice. That’s just my opinion.”

Based on the KAP delegates’ comments, KAP should reject the two proposed royalty options when it attends the Nov. 16 meeting, harder said.

“There’s something at work here and we better learn from that,” he said. “When you go to that meeting Friday don’t say there are only two choices.

“Let’s stick to our guns. This is a big deal. Again we need to be tougher sometimes than what we are. Sometimes we need to march. Sometimes we need to pound our fist on the table and say ‘this is what we want and there is no other option.’”