Guide to Commenting on Proposed Amendments to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations
The NFU and SeedChange created this guide to help you comment on proposed changes to Canada’s Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations, and the proposed elimination of the Farmer’s Privilege.
Thank you for signing the petition to protest this issue – there’s now just one more step: filling out the Canada Gazette regulatory consultation before midnight Eastern Time Oct. 18th!
How to use this guide to submit your comments via Canada Gazette, Part I:
- Click here for the regulatory consultation on Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations.
- Under each heading, highlight the text below with your mouse and “copy” and “paste” the text into the comment box of the corresponding heading section (i.e. The text for “General Comments” goes in “General Comments”.
- You can edit and adapt the text you copied and pasted at this point if you wish.
- Go to the bottom of the Canada Gazette page when you are ready to submit all your comments.
- You can submit your comments anonymously – you do not need to log in or create an account.
- Review your comment and select “Continue to Step 2 of 3”.
- Select “Continue to Step 3 of 3” and submit your comment.
To learn more, read our 2024 Submission to the CFIA’s Consultation regarding Proposed amendments to the Plant Breeders Rights Regulations
Thank you for your time and effort during such a busy season! Together, we can help protect farmers’ rights to save seed!
GENERAL COMMENTS
This proposed regulatory change infringes on Canadian farmers’ right to save seed. The government has not adequately consulted the farmers most affected by this change, nor has it provided sufficient evidence that the proposal will benefit them. Farmers deserve better. Rather than regulations that threaten their livelihoods, they need robust, well-funded public plant breeding programs and the continued right to save and use seed from new plant varieties on their farms.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION
The proposed regulatory change would limit farmers’ ability to save and adapt plant varieties to their local conditions, increasing their dependence on international seed companies selling proprietary varieties.
The consultation document claims that ending Farmers’ Privilege for horticultural and hybrid varieties will incentivize investment and innovation. However, there is no requirement for breeders to use that revenue to develop varieties suited to Canadian climates or farming systems.
The CFIA also asserts that “international breeders are reluctant” to introduce new varieties into the Canadian marketplace. In fact, most vegetable seed sold in Canada is imported from Europe or the United States, and most applications for Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) in horticultural crops come from foreign breeders. As the CFIA notes, “Out of the 400 applications received each year, about 85% (342 applications) are from international applicants, while 15% (58 applications) come from Canadian stakeholders. Of these, 31% (18) are from Canadian public entities (such as universities), and 69% (40) are from private businesses.” Clearly, there is no significant barrier preventing foreign breeders from entering the Canadian market.
This regulatory analysis also ignores a serious risk: the loss of seed diversity. By prohibiting farmers from using propagating material on their own farms, it makes them dependent on breeders for continued access to protected varieties. If a breeder withdraws a variety from the market before the protection period ends, farmers will have no recourse, and that variety could disappear from cultivation. Valuable research and breeding investments would be lost, as has occurred in the past when seed companies removed nearly all non-GMO canola varieties from the market.
The regulatory impact analysis fails to consider the effects on the most important stakeholder in Canada’s agricultural system—the farmer. It provides insufficient data to support its claims and overlooks the negative consequences of restricting farmers’ access to propagating material, including the potential withdrawal of protected varieties to prevent their entry into the public domain.
A more restrictive PBR regime will not deliver plant breeding that serves Canada’s small population and challenging growing conditions. Relying solely on a market-driven breeding approach will leave Canada as a secondary market, regardless of how tightly farmers’ access to new varieties is controlled. Strategic investment in public plant breeding would better support Canadian agriculture and food security.
ISSUES SECTION
Canada’s current Plant Breeders’ Rights legislation and regulations already comply with UPOV ’91. The proposed amendments go beyond those requirements, further strengthening breeders’ rights at the expense of farmers—both financially and in terms of farming practices. The changes would make seed and other propagating materials less accessible and more expensive by imposing the need to buy seed and pay royalties every year. They would also enable plant breeding companies to monopolize genetic material by preventing farmers from reproducing it for use on their own farms.
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT SECTION
The CFIA has not adequately addressed the needs of farmers who must adapt existing varieties to their farms by using farm-saved seed for multiple generations. The agency’s response—that the breeders’ exemption allows new variety development—misses the point: these farmers want to adapt varieties to their own farms, not breed new varieties.
The CFIA also suggests the PBR Act’s non-commercial use exemptions and research exemptions should compensate for not having access to farm-saved seed. These exemptions are for non-farm uses. For farmers, who grow crops for sale, using these exemptions would be illegal.
Organic farmers may need to propagate from seeds/plants that may not be available organically; farmers in marginal climates may need to save propagating material to adapt to regionally-specific weather extremes. These farmers will face higher costs, crop losses, or reduced seed availability under the proposed change.
Consultation timing has also excluded those most affected. The pre-regulatory consultation ran from late May to mid-July—among the busiest months for farmers. The Gazette consultation, open from mid-August to early October, overlaps with peak harvest season. These timelines have severely limited farmers’ ability to participate meaningfully in the consultation process.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS SECTION
There is no data on how much additional revenue for breeders would be gained as a result of eliminating Farmers Privilege on horticultural crops. We are aware that a majority of horticultural farmers buy seed and/or plants every year, and that this is a relatively small sector in Canadian agriculture (25 ,145 farms per Census of Ag 2021). For those that do use the Farmers Privilege, how many would switch from PBR-protected to public domain varieties, and how many would switch to annual purchases? What would the aggregate increase in breeders’ revenue amount to as a result? And how does this compare with the total cost of breeding? This data should be provided so that the claims made in this rationale can be assessed.
NON-APPLICATION OF THE FARMERS’ PRIVILEGE SECTION
Eliminating Farmers’ Privilege for protected fruit, vegetable, ornamental, and hybrid varieties represents an unacceptable encroachment on the long-standing right of farmers to save and reuse seed. The ability to save and use farm-saved seed, cuttings, or grafting material after paying the initial royalty allows farmers to adapt varieties to local conditions, reduce production costs, and maintain autonomy.
The proposed elimination of Farmers’ Privilege on hybrids is especially concerning. It would encourage further development of hybrid varieties for grains, oilseeds and pulse crops —and could lead breeders to de-register open-pollinated alternatives, as occurred with many non-GMO canola varieties. This would allow breeders to increase seed prices and reduce farmers’ net incomes. Farmers rarely save seed from hybrids, as they know subsequent generations produce inconsistent results. There is no evidence that farmers are producing hybrids from“selfs” found in seeded crops on-farm. Even if only a few farmers save seed, removing that right restricts freedom, weakens autonomy, and undermines climate resilience and food security.
Seed saving is vital not only so that farmers have secure access to their most important input, but also because the practice enables:
- on-farm climate resilience through variety adaptation to specific environments and farming practice,
- replacing lost woody perennial berry and fruit tree stock (due to wildlife and/or excessive cold, drought, flooding) with the same variety when not available commercially;
- access to propagating material in the event of severe supply chain disruptions, a significant risk for vegetable seed which is mostly imported.
- reduced seeding/propagating costs (though not a zero cost, as seed saving requires time, skill, storage facilities)
- price discipline on seed sellers – price hikes are limited when farmers can switch to farm-saved seed if the purchase price rises too high
- farmers using a variety if the breeder decides to take it off the market before the PBR protected period ends.
Eliminating Farmers Privilege for fruit, vegetable, ornamental, and hybrid varieties would transfer too much control over Canada’s agriculture sector to an increasingly privatized and concentrated global seed sector.
TERM OF PROTECTION SECTION
Extending the PBR protection period for potatoes, asparagus, and woody non-tree crops (e.g., berries) from 20 to 25 years is not in the public interest. International breeders already dominate PBR registrations in these crops—85% of new potato applications come from outside Canada—demonstrating that current conditions are not a barrier.
Canada’s public potato breeding program in Fredericton, one of the few remaining AAFC variety development programs, continues to produce successful varieties under the current term. Extending protection would simply keep valuable genetics out of the public domain longer, limiting their availability to growers across the country.
