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.

  • Pronell@lemmy.world
    96·
    4 months ago

    Completely ludicrous.

    They want to sell the product that, by nature, replicates itself, then charge their customers for their product continuing to do the thing it was meant to do, which is propagate itself.

    These companies can go propagate themselves.

    • streetfestival@lemmy.caOPEnglish
      39·
      4 months ago

      Agreed, but I also thinks this looks 10x worse on the Canadian government than it does the multinational corps they’re jerking off

      • Routhinator@startrek.websiteEnglish
        5·
        3 months ago

        100% Government is for the people; not the corporations.

        I will throw my vote behind any politician that aimed to remove a corporations ability to act as a person, and a corporations ability to lobby. With those two checkboxes there stands a chance of the people unravelling this web of nonsense.

        • streetfestival@lemmy.caOPEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          I definitely agree that government should be for the people; I wish I felt like it was. With first past the poll (versus proportional representation), the absurd legal protections of corporations, social media, targeted marketing, corporate control of the news, and lobbying - our democracy is on life support. It’s a travesty

    • ProbablyBaysean@lemmy.ca
      92·
      4 months ago

      Different take: seed genome is like a MP3. Piracy (illegal copying) is enforced based on IP. Seeds doing it “naturally on a farm” just means that you have grounds to sue the farmer for not stopping illegal copying.

      • Pronell@lemmy.world
        6·
        4 months ago

        Law doesn’t work that way but I otherwise love the analogy.

        The information takes little to reproduce, and information ‘wants’ to be reproduced.

      • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        4·
        4 months ago

        I think a better analogy would be: it’s like if you bought an MP3 and the company expected you to delete it after you listened to it once, or pay for it again.

        The piracy analogy would apply more for farmers sharing seeds.

    • Naz@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      4 months ago

      This is literally one of the reasons the Holodomor happened – going after farmer’s seeds.

      Monsanto needs to be dissolved and criminally charged.

  • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
    421·
    4 months ago

    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
      371·
      3 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@lemmy.ca
        52·
        4 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@lemmy.ca
          1·
          4 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.

    • Routhinator@startrek.websiteEnglish
      13·
      4 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.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        8·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      4 months ago

      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·
        4 months ago

        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.worldEnglish
          2·
          4 months ago

          vote with their wallets

          If there’s one thing you can count on a farmer to do…

  • Nik282000@lemmy.ca
    331·
    4 months ago

    So, which of the two and a half parties can I vote for to stop this? Oh, none of them?!?

    shocked_pikachu.png

      • exanime@lemmy.world
        2·
        4 months ago

        The NDP is half running the government right now, while this is introduced. Why are they. It stopping it?

        The liberals are literally at their weakest

        • Routhinator@startrek.websiteEnglish
          2·
          4 months ago

          I wish the NDP had that pull on the Liberals, but most of the policies the NDP managed to push through this year were because they agreed to support the Liberals with their policies.

          I’m going to email my NDP MP and see where they actually stand on this.

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    23·
    4 months ago

    Can someone explain to me how the feds think this will decrease food costs, a common issue I hear Canadians facing?My understainding is it will do the oposite…

  • exanime@lemmy.world
    19·
    4 months ago

    Fuck this. And the excuse to bring us to international standards is also a high pile of shit since we have ALL seen the consequences of what this move causes

    Sad part is that there is zero chance a PP win next year would hault this.

    Absolutely, 100%, fuck this

  • Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world
    17·
    4 months ago

    “Food prices are going up. We have no idea why. Must suck to not be able to pay for food. Guess there’s nothing we can do 🤷.” - the government in a couple years probably