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.

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.

  • ProbablyBaysean
    371·
    2 months ago

    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
      52·
      2 months ago

      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
        1·
        2 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.