this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
247 points (99.2% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
265 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
247
Feds look to limit farmers' ancient practice of saving seed (www.nationalobserver.com)
submitted 3 months ago by streetfestival@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Tell me we don't live in a plutocracy, ffs.

The federal government wants to restrict farmers' ability to save seeds and other reproductive plant materials like tree grafts for some crops – and is asking farmers to comment on the changes during the height of the growing season.

Last month, the government announced it is considering amendments to Canada's seed laws that would force farmers to pay seed companies royalties for decades after their original purchase of seeds from protected varieties of plants. Even if farmers grow that plant variety in later years with seed they produced themselves from earlier crops, instead of buying new seed, they must pay the royalties for over 20 years.

If passed, the changes will apply to horticultural crops like vegetables, fruit trees and ornamental plants. They will also restrict farmers’ ability to save and use hybrid seeds, which combine the desirable traits of several genetically different varieties. Public consultations on the proposed changes opened May 29, 2024 and ends on July 12, 2024.

Critics say the move will further exacerbate a crisis in Canadian seed diversity, supply and resilience to climate change. Over the past 100 years, 75 per cent of agricultural biodiversity has declined globally, and only 10 per cent of remaining crop varieties are commercially available in the country.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 41 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

This is primarily targeted towards patented or similarly IP protected seeds, with the intent of making them more profitable for the seed developer so they will produce new varieties. How this will work with commercial farmers is a question I'm not equipped to answer, but on a personal level, this is a good reason to be conscientious about buying heritage and open source seeds.

[–] ProbablyBaysean@lemmy.ca 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Step 1: protect the IP protected seed genomes

Step 2: sue the crap out of people growing those types of plants who arent paying you. Edit: these are all soy beans including "public seed"

Step 3: increase the price now that you have a monopoly on that kind of seeds

Source: Monsanto and soy beans

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I get that, but keep in mind the case everyone refers to is a little more complicated than that. More like:

  1. Protect the IP protected seeds genomes.

  2. Have people save seeds from fields that have experienced blowover.

  3. Use pesticides to kill off non-resistaseeplants from those saved seeds.

  4. Repeat a few seasons.

  5. Get the crap sued out of you for having knowingly bred for the pesticide resistant genes in your IP.

Now, I'm not saying this isn't shitty of Monsanto, but that still has no bearing on the economics for the farmer. If he can produce a better outcome for the dollar, perhaps it makes sense to go thenroute of buying IP-protected seeds. I can only assume this is true, or a lot more farmers would reject those seeds. Also, if the price gets too high, the non-IP plants will become more financially attractive and farmers would turn to them. Hence why I say I'm not equipped to say what makes more sense for them, but it's not a place I'd willingly put myself into.

[–] ProbablyBaysean@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

in number 3, did you mean "herbicides"

The thing is, I understand that some farmers were doing that, but some others were simply trying to grow soybeans, and they didn't use herbicides, but Monsanto successfully sued them into never saving "soybean" seed ever again.

[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago

"Open source seeds"

The future is fucking bonkers, man

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 13 points 3 months ago

Problem as has been seen in the US, is you cannot control what corn pollinates your corn. So if your neighbour buys Monsanto, their patented genes end up in the offspring of your crops, and your seeds become subject to patent even if you've never used Monsanto. And then their lawyers come for you as they have done to numerous small time farmers in the US.

[–] ColdWater@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Everything is proprietary now?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not everything, and not now. As per the article, these laws have been in place since the 90s, and there are seeds, etc. that aren't covered.

[–] ColdWater@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

Now imagine they make seeds and put some kind of "DRM" inside its DNA XD

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As a farmer that uses regular, hybrid and GMO seed, I'm fine with this. The hybrid breeders have a tough time making it worthwhile to go to the expense and effort of developing a strain that they really can only profit off of on the basis of purity of strain. There are great strides made in regular hybridization for drought resistance, heat tolerance and standability, but when I can just keep their seed and take it to a cleaner, it really doesn't help encourage the breeders.

I think there needs to be some restrictions on royalty rates, and accomodation made for availability. If I have to search all over and maybe not get the variety I need because nobody feels they can afford to pay the royalties and don't grow it, then this all backfires.

That said, older registered varieties still produce well in most years, so maybe it isn't so bad to have to take the second choice.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the insight. I'm concerned about regulatory capture, much like in the wireless market. That would absolutely have a negative impact on the royalties for farmers, but producing hybrids still isn't cheap. I can see where both sides have some valid arguments, and hope the government comes to a reasonable conclusion. If they don't, I hope the farmers vote with their wallets for the sake of all of us.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

vote with their wallets

If there's one thing you can count on a farmer to do...