For the most part, farmers in Canada play by the rules when it comes to crop varieties protected by plant breeders’ rights.
Typically, 100 to 150 warning letters are sent each year to farmers believed to be selling protected varieties illegally, said Lorne Hadley, executive director of the Canadian Plant Technology Agency, an industry organization created a few years ago to raise awareness of plant breeders’ rights and to monitor and enforce those rights. None of the cases has wound up in court, he said.
“In most cases, it’s because companies and producers got together and negotiated a settlement, even when cases were filed.”
Read Also
Stock dogs show off herding skills at Ag in Motion
Stock dogs draw a crowd at Ag in Motion. Border collies and other herding breeds are well known for the work they do on the farm.
In the majority of cases where a farmer violates PBR, Hadley said it is an oversight or a lack of awareness of how the law applies to the seed they are selling.
He said a more serious concern is companies, such as farm supply retailers, that sell protected seed illegally. At times, large volumes of seed are involved.
“Those are the ones we generally take to the filing of civil lawsuits and moving forward through the court system.”
The penalties in those cases have ranged from $10,000 to $200,000, Hadley said. One of the factors determining the damages is the volume of seed sold.
The seed industry insists that efforts to amend the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act in Canada are needed to attract further investment in crop variety development and innovation.
The National Farmers Union has been the loudest critic in Western Canada of those proposed changes and suggests they will give seed companies the right to subject farmers to long and costly court battles over PBR-protected varieties, even in cases where protected seed inadvertently got into their fields through incorrectly labelled seed packages or seed contamination.
“These farm families will be put in an excruciating position: knuckle under and pay a large settlement and agree to a gag order or risk the farm in a costly court battle and risk an even larger settlement,” wrote the NFU in a submission it made in March to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency concerning the proposed changes.
Producers will find themselves trapped “between the devil and the deep blue sea,” NFU research director Darrin Qualman said in
an interview.
Hadley took exception to suggestions that the companies he represents would use intimidation to enforce their rights.
“You have to remember that we’re dealing with our customers. We don’t intimidate. We inform, and it’s up to the producer to make
a choice whether he’s willing to act appropriately on that information or not.
“There’s no allegation without something that would stand up in court. These are professionals that run these companies. They’re not dealing on rumours. They’re dealing on fact.”
