|
|
 
|
Would a Schmeiser win hurt plant breeding? by Paul Beingessner
(Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- In the wake of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, now being considered by the
Supreme Court of Canada, fear has been expressed about the consequences
a Schmeiser win might have for plant breeding in Canada.
The Canadian Seed Trade Association, for example, has said that
weakening patent protections would discourage seed companies from
investing in or serving Canadian customers. It has also urged the
government to adopt even more stringent plant protections than currently
exist.
The notion that tightening up rules around plant patents will cause
research to wither and die needs some examining. It is based on two
different but related ideas. The first is that companies would not spend
research dollars in Canada because weakening patent laws would prevent
them from getting sufficient returns for their work. Since the public
plant breeding programs have been seriously under funded, the argument
goes, they would not be able to take up the slack created by the decline
in private research.
The second argument is that Plant Breeders Right's alone is not
sufficient to protect plant varieties. Companies need the additional
protection that patents afford.
According to the Canadian Seed Trade Association, public breeding has
shrunk to an insignificant amount and private breeding must be
encouraged if we are to remain competitive in crop production.
But is this actually so? The numbers do not bear it out, at least in
some crops. In wheat, for example, a look at the list of recommended
varieties for Saskatchewan shows that the vast majority of varieties of
all types of wheat have come and are still coming from public breeding
programs.
All varieties of durum listed in the guide come from public
institutions, 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. Of the seven red spring varieties that come from
private breeding programs, only 3 were developed in Saskatchewan and
none are grown on any significant acreage.
Nor is this situation limited to wheat. All but two of the oat varieties
listed come from public institutions. So do all fall rye varieties, 17
out of 20 malt barley varieties, nine of ten feed barleys, 10 of 11
hulless barleys and all 7 of what the guide calls intensive management
barleys.
Despite 10 years of Plant Breeders Rights protection, private plant
breeders exhibit little interest in developing cereals for the Canadian
prairies. Nor are farmers short of good varieties to choose from in
these crops.
While it is true that public money for plant breeding, that is money
directly from governments, has diminished greatly in recent years, much
of the slack has been taken up by direct farmer contributions through
check-offs. Royalties play a smaller role in funding public breeding,
but they are still significant. What is noteworthy is that these
royalties existed as part of the licensing system prior to the Plant
Breeders Rights Act, under the Seeds Act. One plant breeder told me
that, though the contribution from royalties is small, it is not tied to
specific projects, and so can be used for upgrading equipment and
similar, less sexy needs.
Pulse crops, particularly lentil, chickpea and dry bean varieties
similarly show the impact of public breeding work. All lentils on the
list, for example, come from public work. Most of the work in breeding
pulse crops comes from the Crop Development Center at the University of
Saskatchewan. It is funded by a check-off collected from farmers when
they sell pulses. The Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, the organization that
administers the check-off, does not allow its varieties to be protected
by Plant Breeders Rights believing that farmers have already paid for
the development of these crops and should not have to pay again.
The exception to all this is canola. Many of the new canola varieties
come from private breeders. This explains the interest in patents
exhibited by the Canadian Seed Trade Association. Its members are
largely involved in canola work. Canola is cross-pollinated, rather than
self-pollinated like most cereals. Thus varieties may not hold true to
type for as long. As well, seed multiplication is much quicker, due to
the small seed size and hence large number of seeds produced. In short,
there is more money to be made in canola breeding.
What is apparent from all this is that the work of public plant breeding
in Canada remains extremely important. This work has not been enhanced
significantly by the existence of Plant Breeders Rights in that PBRs
have not resulted in many new cereals, pulses, or other smaller volume
crops, or in much new breeding in Canada. Multinational seed companies
seem not much interested in crops that will not make them lots of money.
There is however, some private money in breeding cereals. Quaker Oats,
for example, has funded oat development at the University of
Saskatchewan for 30 years. Quaker Oats has no interest in PBRs or
patents on these varieties. As an end user, it simply wants to make sure
farmers have access to good oat varieties, so Quaker has a good product.
What Plant Breeders Rights legislation has done is given us a profusion
of look-alike varieties. With a decline in independent testing of these
varieties, farmers more and more have to choose based on advertising.
Small wonder then that, as a plant breeder told me, the advertising
budgets of the major seed companies far exceed their budgets for
research and development. You have to wonder how that makes farmers
better off.
(c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax | |
