Monsanto & Biotech Bullies Move to Stop Farmers from Saving Their Own Seeds

>From <www.commondreams.org>
Published on Wednesday, October 6, 2004 by the Inter Press Service

Canada: Monsanto Victory Plants Seed of Privatization

by Stephen Leahy

BROOKLIN, Canada - Canadian farmers' traditional right to save seeds is
being threatened by proposals to collect royalties on virtually all such
seeds following agribusiness giant Monsanto's victory over grower Percy
Schmeiser.

A recent review of Canada's entire production and regulatory system for the
seeds farmers plant looked at ways to collect payments (royalties) on seeds
the growers save from their own crops, to link crop insurance to the use of
purchased certified seeds and to increase intellectual property protection
for seed companies.

"It's a fundamental shift in agriculture to the privatization of seeds,"
says Terry Pugh, executive secretary of Canada's National Farmer's Union
(NFU). "There are no benefits (in this) for farmers."

Formally known as the Seed Sector Review, Pugh described the process as an
industry-driven restructuring of Canada's seed production system. Companies
such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dupont, which dominate Canada's seed
industry, are pushing for "deregulation" and increased profitability, he
added in an interview.

The essence of the review is to turn growers into consumers of seed from
producers of seed. "Farmers can't believe this is happening," added Pugh.

Various regulations in Canada's laws have long protected farmers from
unscrupulous seed sellers by requiring that new varieties of wheat and other
grains pass a merit test. Before they could be sold to farmers their makers
had to prove they offered better yields, improved disease resistance or
agronomic performance.

Until the 1990s most of the research into new seed varieties was done
either by government researchers or publicly funded university plant
breeders. To encourage corporate seed research, Canada created the Plant
Breeders Rights Act (PBR) in 1990.

Under the PBR when farmers bought certified (high quality) seed from a
company they could save seed from their crop for their own use the following
year but could not sell it to anyone else. This seed saving for a farmer's
own use could continue indefinitely but growers were technically prohibited
from selling it.

In fact, after several years most farmers felt free to sell what they felt
had become ²common² seed. And seed companies did not particularly object as
long as farmers did not try and pass off what they felt was lower-quality or
impure seed as one of their registered varieties.

That is all about to change as Canada's federal agricultural department
appears more interested in protecting the profits of seed companies than
farmers, says Paul Beingessner, a third-generation grain and livestock
farmer near Truax in the province of Saskatchewan.

"There's lots of seed trading among farmers here. We rarely buy certified
seed for cereals. It's rarely better seed and just not necessary,"
Beingessner said in an interview.

If Saskatchewan spring wheat growers had to buy certified seed each year,
it would increase their costs by an average of 1,400 Canadian dollars (1,110
U.S. dollars) per farm, he calculates. He estimates that five percent of all
wheat and barley growers in the province, the heart of Canada's "bread
basket," buy new seed.

The proposals in the Seed Sector Review are an attempt to force more
farmers to buy certified seed from the seed companies, says Beingessner.
"It's a money grab, pure and simple."

The royalty provisions would also mean that farmers would one day have to
pay royalties on traded seed.

Bill Leask, executive director of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, one
of four groups that initiated the review, would hardly use those words but
feels those who bring new varieties to market should be rewarded for their
efforts.

"It costs between one and two million dollars to create a new variety of
seed," Leask said in an interview. The CSTA says it has 577 million dollars
in sales annually.

While he acknowledges that new varieties are only possible because of the
breeding efforts of farmers over the past millennia, Leask argues "today's
seeds are nothing like they were then, and are long ways from the seeds of
50 years ago."

The review's final recommendations will soon be put before the government
but they do not include a royalty provision for saved seeds, Leask says.
"The NFU is completely wrong about this. There are no royalty provisions in
Canada."

However, the seed industry does think royalties have merit and would like
to look at such a proposal in the future, he adds.

Although the Seed Sector Review began in 2003, it is consistent with a push
for corporate control of seed, best illustrated in Monsanto's May 2004
Supreme Court victory over Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser, both Pugh
and Beingessner believe.

Monsanto alleged that Schmeiser illegally saved its genetically engineered
²Roundup Ready² canola (oilseed rape) in 1997, after the firm obtained
plants from his farm the following year that contained its patented
genetics.

Throughout six years of litigation, Schmeiser steadfastly maintained his
fields were contaminated by pollen from a neighbour's Roundup Ready canola
fields and by seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a nearby processing
plant.

Despite widespread evidence of contamination on many other farms, the
Supreme Court determined the farmer infringed on Monsanto's legal rights
under Canada's Patent Act by 'using' the company's patented gene when he
harvested and sold his crop.

That decision remains highly controversial.

Recently Rene Van Acker, a University of Manitoba agricultural expert,
wrote to tell the Supreme Court that seed samples from Schmeiser's contested
1997 crop that he tested were not 95-98 per cent Roundup Ready canola, as
Monsanto claimed. Rather, the amount of Roundup Ready canola in the crop
varied between three to 67 percent, depending on the sample tested.

Other research has shown that Roundup Ready canola has spread widely, and
now shows up in ditches, schoolyards and city lots. Even the purest,
certified non-genetically engineered canola now contains up to 4.9 per cent
Roundup Ready content, Van Acker writes.

Moreover, the researcher says he cannot find any documents that
substantiate Monsanto's claim that Schmeiser's crop was 95 percent
contaminated.

At the heart of the debate over ownership of seeds is the principle of a
farmer's right to save seeds. The Schmeiser case and the recommendations of
the Seed Sector Review are completely contradictory to the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, which came into force this summer, says
Pat Mooney of the ETC Group, a Canadian non-governmental organisation (NGO)
that was heavily involved in the treaty negotiations.

"The treaty is very strong on farmer seed saving. Canada was the first
country to ratify the treaty," Mooney told IPS.

In Leask's view the treaty is all about protecting the rights of indigenous
people in developing countries, who have saved seeds for centuries. In
Canada there is no legal right of farmers to save seed, he argues.

The review recommends the government acknowledge farmers' "privilege" to
save seed for their own holdings, an approach Leask supports. "I don't think
farmers ought to have a legal right to save seeds," he adds.

© 2004 IPS - Inter Press Service

###

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.