|
|
 
|
Review suggests crop insurance be linked to using certified seed by Paul Beingessner
(Tuesday, March 30, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- A couple columns ago I wrote about the Seed Sector Review, a federally funded project initiated by the seed industry. The review has gained little press, but participants to the review seem to believe Canada is
facing a potential crisis in plant breeding, due to inadequate rules and regulations.
Reading between the lines, however, it's hard to avoid one or the other
of two possible conclusions: either the seed growers and marketers are
worried about their declining fortunes as farmers fail to leap to the
newest protected varieties, or seed growers and marketers see the
potential for a windfall on the horizon if they can convince governments
to force farmers to save less of their own seed, and buy more from them.
The Review documents focus a fair bit on how to get farmers to use more
certified seed. The benefits to farmers are described as:
The first issue is one that would be of interest, I'm sure, to farmers.
But it begs the question why, if certified seed produces better yields,
do farmers not use more of it? Logic suggests that the benefits of
buying new seed each year do not outweigh the cost.
The second issue, increased traceability, sounds good, as we've all been
told that consumers wants to know where their food comes from. We have
often swallowed this, too, but the Canadian Wheat Board tells me that
consistency is what customers worry about, not traceability.
Traceability may be an issue for meat, because of issues related to
food-borne pathogens, but it is not an issue for buyers of grains. They
want consistency, above everything, so their mills and bakeries produce
a uniform product.
The third issue, greater royalty collection supporting greater research
is more complex, and needs a thorough look. This statement implies that
if holders of patents and plant breeders rights collect greater
royalties, they will pour more into research. There are a few problems
with this. If you look at western Canadian crops and breeding programs,
you will see that private breeding is concentrated in the canola
industry. Most canola growers buy new seed each year, partly because, as
Monsanto likes to point out, most canola is Roundup Ready. Growers are
obligated to buy new seed. So there is little opportunity to collect
more royalties or sell more seed here.
Most cereal crop varieties, on the other hand, have been created in
publicly funded breeding programs, many of these funded by farmers
through check-offs. For example, on Saskatchewan's list of recommended
varieties, all durums, all hard white spring wheat varieties, all Extra
Strong varieties, all winter wheats, all soft white spring wheats, six
out of eight Prairie Spring varieties, and 19 of the 26 listed hard red
spring wheat varieties come from public institutions. Much the same is
true for oats, flax, rye and barley.
If you look at pulse crops, most varieties grown in Saskatchewan have
come from the Crop Development Center at the University of Saskatchewan,
paid for by a check-off on pulse crops.
Farmers are already paying for the creation of these varieties and if
more money is required, they might well choose to give it through
check-offs rather than royalties. They at least have some control over
the use of check-off money through their producer-controlled
organizations. When royalties go to private companies, there is no
guarantee they fund research. As every researcher at the multi-national
seed companies knows, they spend far more on advertising than they do on
research.
Private breeders do some, though not much work in cereal varieties.
Research is much cheaper in canola and seed production faster and easier
due to the small seed size. One plant breeder told me the private sector
would never be willing to produce a wheat of the quality of Barrie
because the cost would be too great.
Since private breeders focus on canola, where they already collect
royalties, and public breeders are not crying out for tighter controls
and greater access to royalties, you have to wonder what all the fuss is
about. Maybe it all comes down to selling more certified seed so seed
growers make more money. The Review documents acknowledge this should
not be forced, but go on to suggest that perhaps crop insurance programs
should "link insurance premiums with use of certified seed" or
"alternatively, only insure certified seed crops."
Some seed growers and their allies in the big seed companies like to
spread the hysteria that breeding is in great danger and Canada will be
left behind if it does not take more money from farmers and give it to
them. The facts don't support that conclusion. Nor do farmers have the
kind of money buying certified seed for all their crops each year would
take. Worst of all, there is no proof this will benefit them greatly, or
even much at all.
(c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax | |
