In some ways they’re new.
In other ways tough “technology use” agreements governing producers who grow some varieties of genetically altered crops are just like the contracts farmers have been signing for decades.
Either way, putting restrictions on how farmers grow their crops doesn’t always go down well with them, says the head of the University of Saskatchewan’s agricultural law program.
“It seems like one of the things you should be able to do,” said Don Buckingham, who is both a law professor and a farmer. “It’s an unsettling feeling about not being able to grow your own seed.”
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
In legal terms, these types of contracts are commonplace. Companies like Monsanto use them to govern the farmer’s use of patented, genetically altered crops, Buckingham said.
Farmers routinely sign bank loan contracts, insurance contracts, futures contracts and crop insurance contracts. All these lay down strict conditions that must be followed by both sides.
If one side breaks the contract, the other can demand redress.
“Farmers are always making contracts to buy things,” said Buckingham.
But having to give up control over the actual growing of a crop seems to stoke rebellion.
“The contracted behavior is new.”
In the United States, contract production has spread in some areas to cover almost all aspects of production. In some situations the farmer supplies nothing but his labor, with everything else provided by the contracting company.
“It’s a challenge to the notion of what it meant to be a family farm.”
Buckingham said farmers must treat production contracts seriously, even if they seem an invasion of their autonomy.
“It is a contract and you do have the right not to sign it,” Buckingham said. “Make sure you know it as well as your bank loan.”
