Old Macdonald Had a Seed
Old MacDonald Had a Seed
by author Susan Safyan
Throughout the Prairies and farming communities across the nation, an issue is being hotly debated by both multi-hectare farmers and small-market gardeners: Is the Canadian government handing over control of our food system to transnational biotech corporations? Or is Canada finally positioning itself to become more competitive in the global agri-food market?
The kernel of the debate is whether farmers and gardeners have the right to save, reuse, and exchange seeds. Is saving seeds a privilege granted by corporations under special circumstances, or is it a right established over millennia of farming practices? Should farmers pay royalties to companies that develop and sell seeds every time they plant seeds or harvest a crop? Will the use of seeds saved by farmers for their own use be outlawed? At this point there are more questions than answers.
The Seeds of Change
Currently, farmers’ rights to save seeds are regulated under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act (1990, c.20) and the Seeds Act (1985, c.S-8). This legislation is administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Under the existing plant breeders’ rights (PBR) system, plant breeders of new varieties of seeds have “exclusive rights to produce and sell [these seeds] in Canada.” The current act, however, does not prohibit farmers from saving and reusing seeds. In practice this means that crop seeds, when saved and reused by farmers, become what is known as “common” seeds.
Proposed amendments to the legislation, say critics, would impose royalties on common seeds, making them too expensive and inconvenient to use and would, therefore, compel farmers to buy and use only certified seeds produced by agri-tech corporations. Farmers would no longer own seeds but would be reduced to, in the colourful rhetoric of political debate, mere “renters of corporate seeds.” Proponents of the amendments counter that they would “enshrine” farmers’ rights to save certain types of seed varieties.
Whether the amendments threaten or protect farmers’ rights remains to be seen. But how did these proposed amendments originate? Was there something wrong with the existing PBR system?
Industry-Driven Growth
In 2003 a consortium called the Seed Sector Advisory Review Committee (SSR) began an initiative to restructure the seed industry. The SSR is made up of four groups: the Canadian Seed Institute, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Seed Growers Association, and the Canadian Seed Trade Association. The latter group’s members include biotech giants, such as Bayer, Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and Syngenta Seeds, known to the public for genetically engineered seeds, pesticides, bovine growth hormone (rBGH), and other agro-chemicals.
The SSR’s recommendations for legislative and policy changes to the seed industry were submitted to the CFIA in 2004. After a consultation and review period, which ended March 8, 2005, the government is now reviewing the feasibility of the amendments that arose out of the SSR process. These amendments would bring Canada’s legislation in line with the 1991 Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 1991).
The Canadian Seed Trade Association maintains that Canada must change its PBR system to comply with UPOV 1991. Compliance is needed, they say, to “recoup [industry] investment in research, development and commercialization of crop genetics.” Croplife, a trade association that represents pesticide and biotech companies, claims amendments to plant breeders’ rights are necessary at this time to boost profitability and fuel further investment. The Canadian Seed Trade Association claims that private sector investment in biotech R & D nearly tripled between 1987 and 2001, and now private investment in plant breeding amounts to more than $70 million.
The CFIA concurs that Canada must offer financial and regulatory incentives to plant breeders who invest in the development of Canadian crops. Acquisitions and mergers like the recent buyout of Pioneer Hi-Bred seeds by Dupont for $10 billion US will drive the innovations necessary to make Canada “a positive working environment for research and plant breeding.” But do these industry incentives come at the cost of farmers’ rights and economic well-being?
Down on The Farm
Critics of proposed amendments to the PBR system say the changes will restrict farmers’ rights to save seeds and add to farmers’ costs, while they deregulate oversight on corporate practices–enriching corporate coffers.
The National Farmers Union (NFU) opposes the proposed amendments. They point out that UPOV 1991 contravenes farmers’ rights to save seeds as outlined in the 2004 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The NFU also charges that industry-driven changes to legislation will compel farmers to buy only certified seeds and, in essence, outlaw common seeds. Government and public participation in plant breeding will be reduced, and, in the end, farmers will pay billions of dollars in royalties and fees to transnational seed companies for the right to plant and harvest crops.
Royalty payments on farm-saved seeds, linking crop insurance and the awarding of lucrative contracts to the purchase of certified seeds, and expanding seed-patent protections-all proposed amendments to the PBR system-will have severe economic implications for Canada’s grain industry, according to the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), the largest wheat marketer in the world. By one estimate, compulsory purchase of certified seeds alone could cost each farm an average of $1,400 per year.
The Canadian government maintains that by invoking a potential exemption to UPOV 1991, farmers would be allowed to “continue saving and using seed of a protected variety for their own use.” This is known as “farmers’ privilege.”
The CWB says that “farmers’ privilege” is a “misnomer and does not accurately reflect farmers’ longstanding practice of saving seed for their own use.” Saving seeds, they claim, “is a right, and not a privilege,” a right that should be “entrenched in federal legislation and policy.” The exemption for farmers’ privilege, furthermore, is not explicitly provided for in the amendments.
Sowing Dissent
NDP Agriculture critic Charlie Angus and Foreign Affairs critic Alexa McDonough tabled a motion in March 2005 to address what they see as CFIA’s attack on farmers’ traditional rights to save seeds. Angus has also spoken out about a separate but related issue for farmers: Monsanto’s push to end the moratorium on so-called terminator seeds, which are genetically modified to produce plants with infertile seeds. In a House of Commons debate, Angus charged that the biotech industry is “going after the very seeds in the ground and turning our farmers into sharecroppers for Monsanto.”
In May 2005 Conservative MP Scott Reid presented to the House a petition from the National Farmers Union on the right to save seeds, which read as follows:
“We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, recognize the inherent rights of farmers–derived from thousands of years of custom and tradition–to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. Current and newly proposed restrictions on farmers’ traditional practices–resulting from commercial contracts, identity preservation (IP) systems, and/or legislation–criminalize these ancient practices and harm farmers, citizens, and society in general.
“Therefore, your petitioners call on Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act that would further restrict farmers’ rights or add to farmers’ costs. Further, we call on Parliament to enshrine, in legislation, the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.”
Whoever controls the dissemination of seeds also controls a large part of Canada’s food production system. The proposed amendments, says the NFU, would hand that control over to transnational seed companies.
Patenting Life
Critics of the SSR also say that its proposals are in line with the May 2004 Supreme Court victory handed to Monsanto over Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser. Monsanto claimed that Schmeiser violated its legal rights as a plant breeder by allowing its patented Roundup Ready seeds to grow on his property. Schmeiser maintains that the seeds accidentally blew onto his property and contaminated his own crop. Monsanto’s claim was upheld by the Supreme Court, although the patented canola seeds were also proven to have accidentally blown into nearby ditches and empty lots.
Because seeds are patentable, they may be legally considered a form of intellectual property. It is arguable, therefore, that any farmer’s right to reuse or save seeds must be governed by the owner of the patent; farmers get one-time usage rights and can be denied any further rights without paying royalties–a common practice under intellectual property laws.
The amendments to Canadian legislation suggested by the SSR process have not yet been passed. The future of farmers’ rights to save and reuse seeds is still unknown, but it’s not difficult to see that the biotech premise of renting corporate seeds has already found roots in Canadian law.
Susan Safyan is an assistant editor at alive.
Source: alive #277, November 2005
Changes at Monsanto
by author Elisabeth Abergel, PhD
It would appear that Monsanto is turning over a new "genetically modified" leaf. A company spokesperson pledged in the Aug. 17, 2002 issue of The Economist to be more transparent by involving the public in dialogue, presumably in response to European resistance against genetically modified organisms. A nice promise. But how realistic is it?
Monsanto is the world’s leading producer of genetically modified (GM) seed and one of the most important firms involved in chemical agriculture. The company focuses its business on four key crops: soy beans, corn, wheat and cotton.
The Economist reports that 83 per cent of Monsanto’s $550-million research budget was devoted to the development of new seeds and biotechnology–well over the industry average of 29 per cent. This means we can expect to hear about new Monsanto products in the years to come--notably, herbicide-tolerant wheat, a hotly contested product in Canada. Will Monsanto’s so-called commitment to transparency and public accountability include the decision to not market products that threaten both the environment and export revenues for North American farmers?
Seeds Of Doubt
The North American genetic engineering industry hasn’t been as successful as expected, according to a new report called "Seeds of Doubt," publicized last September by Britain’s Soil Association. Authors Gundala Meziani and Hugh Warwick reveal how after six years of commercial growing, GM food crops haven’t realized most of the claimed benefits, but have, in fact, been a "practical and economic disaster" for farmers.
Four countries, including Canada and the United States, produce 99 per cent of global GE crops, which makes North America a good place to evaluate. North American farmers were asked about their experience with GM corn, soy and canola. The report states that "widespread GM contamination has severely disrupted GM-free production [including organic farming], destroyed trade and undermined the competitiveness of North American agriculture overall." Among its other conclusions:
- Farmers growing GM crops in North America have lost profits due to lower market prices and lower yields. For example, Roundup Ready soy crops yield six to 11 per cent less than non-GM varieties.
- Canadian farmers rely on herbicides more than ever; they also have less choice in how they farm, as they become locked into GM crops.
- GM soy beans, corn and canola crops have cost the US economy more than $12 billion in farm subsidies since 1999.
- The lack of segregation between GM and non-GM varieties has made the food processing and distribution system susceptible to costly contamination accidents. The Starlink contamination of GM corn that was unapproved for human consumption into the US corn supply cost the company responsible almost $1 billion.
- In just a few years, Canada has lost $300 million in annual canola oilseed exports to countries within Europe and Japan.
Farmers indicate that market problems have made them question the future of GM crops. Most farming organizations in the US and Canada have joined forces to lobby against the release of GM wheat, the next proposed GM crop. The full "Seeds of Doubt" report is available for purchase at soilassociation.org.
Choosing Kitchen Oils
Given the prevalence of GM oilseeds, it's important to carefully choose your kitchen oils. In addition to great taste, when you opt for organic, natural, cold-pressed oils such as pumpkin seed, flax, walnut, hazelnut and olive oil, you can be assured they are GM-free. The best places to find these unrefined oils are in culinary-specialty shops and health food stores.
Source: alive #243, January 2003
The Fight For the Future of Food
by author Richard Wolfson, PhD
Our federal government has abdicated its responsibility for protecting public health in favor of promoting profits for international chemical giants. This was the message from a "Food Safety and Public Health Forum" sponsored by the Canadian Health Coalition in Ottawa last October.
John Verrall, from the United Kingdom (UK) Food Ethics Council, pointed out that biotechnology allows the entire world’s food supply to be controlled by a handful of biotech giants. This is dangerous. The agenda of industry is not to protect the public, but to produce profits. The mad cow disease crisis in Europe showed consumers they can’t blindly trust government, which has become controlled by industry. Canada’s tainted blood scandal, which affected 60,000 lives, was another deregulation catastrophe.
Profit Before Safety
John Harvey, editor of the UK’s Organic Farming Journal, said the main cause of food poisoning in Europe is not isolated failures of fridges or hygiene lapses, but companies systematically sidelining safety to reduce expenses.
Another important safety problem is overuse of antibiotics in animals, which is a major cause of antibiotic-resistant diseases. Pharmaceutical companies make enormous money selling these drugs to farmers.
Jeffrey Jenkins, a legal expert in international food trades, said the World Trade Organization (WTO) is being used to force countries to accept imports from other countries, even against their will. The WTO fined the European Union $180 million for rejecting hormone-laden beef from USA. The organization said that there was insufficient evidence showing hormone-laden beef is unsafe, in spite of links to cancer.
No Experience Necessary
Michèle Brill-Edwards, MD, FRCPC, formerly senior physician responsible for regulating prescription drugs in Canada, described the erosion of safety standards in Canada. Health Canada personnel with expertise in food safety, who might impose safety restrictions on industry, were removed from the agency.
Also, Canada’s Food and Drugs Act is being systematically dismantled and deregulated. The recently instituted Canadian Food Safety and Inspection Act, which transferred food safety to the Ministry of Agriculture, is a clear conflict of interest. The Ministry of Agriculture cannot properly protect the public because its role is to support industry, which views safety as "red tape."
Precautionary Principle
We are moving away from the precautionary principle, built into the Food and Drugs Act, which states that products need be proven safe before they are marketed. Under proposed new legislation (currently referred to as Bill C-80), products can be marketed unless there is explicit proof of harm. In this framework, products can be sold until there are sufficient "dead bodies" for the public to notice.
According to researcher Ken Rubin, Bill C-80 will limit the ability of the Minister of Health to act to ensure our safety. The other ministers who are more concerned with industry and trade, will be able to prioritize corporate profit above human protection. Brill-Edwards said government should ensure we don’t all become "road kill on the highway to corporate profit."
Daniel Dotto, representing Consumer Health Protection for the European Commission, referred to the string of food crises in Europe (like mad cow, Coca-Cola and dioxins in Belgian chickens), showing what happens when governments loosen control on food safety. When the officials who protect public health also promote industry, health
disasters occur.
The Gene Giants
Michael Hansen, PhD, from the Consumer Policy Institute in New York, explained that the main use of biotechnology is not to benefit consumers, but to increase herbicide sales. In 1996, 23 percent of biotech crops (covering 2.8 million acres) were engineered to be herbicide resistant. By 1998, 71 percent of biotech crops (28 million hectares) were herbicide resistant. Herbicide-resistant crops allow more use of herbicides to kill weeds without killing the crops.
The biotech giants are also the major herbicide producers (Monsanto, Novartis and Dupont). They use biotechnology largely to promote sales of their own products. These corporations have also bought up the major seed companies, which gives them even greater control over our food supply.
Codex Phonies