By John Mbaria
The process of preparing a Bill to regulate genetically modified
technology in Kenya is shrouded in secrecy, a leading environmental Lawyer
told The EastAfrican last week.
?There has been so much secrecy that most stakeholders do not even
know where they should go to get a copy of the Bill,? said Maurice Makoloo.

He explained that, under Kenya?s environmental law, any proposed law
or policy is supposed to be subjected to an environmental impact assessment,
which would give all concerned parties a chance to interrogate its contents.

?But as for the Biosafety Bill, this has not been done? most
researchers, lawyers and other stakeholders have been kept in the dark.?

Similar sentiments were expressed by representatives of Kenya?s
small-scale farmers, faith-based organisations, NGOs and civil society
groups who presented a memorandum to the Minister of Science and Technology,
Dr Noah Wekesa, and Agricultural Minister Kipruto Arap Kirwa.

In the memorandum, the groups demanded the withdrawal of the Bill
before it becomes an Order Paper for discussion by Members of Parliament.
They also called for a national exercise of collecting views and the
incorporation of the views into the Bill.

The EastAfrican has acquired a copy of the Bill, which ? on the
surface ? appears harmless as it provides for the establishment of a
National Biosafety Authority to regulate biotechnology in the country as
contained in Section 5.

First published in 2005, the Bill is intended to ?facilitate
responsible research? into genetically modified organisms and to ensure
protection in transfer and use of GMOs. It also provides for the
establishment of the National Biosafety Authority and the National Biosafety
Committee, which will regulate all GM activities in the country.

?No person shall conduct any of the following activities without the
written approval of the Authority,? it reads in part.

Dr Florence Wambugu, head of the African Harvest Biotech Foundation
and a key pro-GM campaigner, says the Bill?s objectives ?are to ensure an
adequate level of protection in the field of safe transfer, handling and use
of genetically modified organisms.?

The EastAfrican has established that the new Bill is the culmination
of a long-running boardroom initiative by key biotechnology bodies and
national research institutes, with support from the United States Agency for
International Development (USAid) and giant biotechnology multinationals and
their foundations.

These efforts are said to have begun in the early 2000s when it was
felt that with the global expansion of research on genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), Kenya needed a national policy and law to outline the
direction of such research and to ensure safety of the public. The scheme
also involved taking some MPs on a tour to Kenya?s coast to ?sensitise? them
to biotechnology issues.

Seemingly, researchers have not been keen to wait for the Bill to
become law before openly experimenting on the GM crops. For instance, with
facilitation from US-based biotechnology multinational Monsanto and the
Syngenta Foundation (associated with the Swiss-based biotechnology giant,
Syngenta) researchers at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Kari)
had been experimenting on GM maize, cassava, sweet potatoes and cotton.

At the same time, the National Biosafety Committee allowed open trials
of genetically modified cotton on farmers? fields in Mwea, Eastern Kenya,
last month.

Interestingly, Monsanto offered the new cotton variety, which it
hailed as having the ability to save farmers up to 32 per cent in production
costs, as it does not require pesticides.

The cotton variety is said to be loaded with an organism termed
Bacillus thurigiensis that is reputed to have in-built poisons that kill
cotton pests (especially African bollworm).

But environmentalists now fear that the introduction of these toxins
in areas that have not developed a natural ability to destroy them, could
result in the decimation of beneficial plants and insects besides other
hazards.

Observers are wondering why the concerned Kenyan authorities and
individual scientists seem to be in such a hurry to introduce GMOs in the
country. Some Kenyan MPs seem to have also bought into the pro-GMO lobby as
they have in the past praised the benefits that genetically modified foods
can bring to the country. Media reports published two years ago about the
MPs? workshops at the Whitesands Hotel in Mombasa showed most were receptive
to biotechnology, which they believed could uplift economic development in
the country, and were also supportive of the Biosafety Bill.

Analysts have now taken issue with some of the Bill?s provisions. On
June 12 this year, Patricia Mbote, a professor of law at the International
Environmental Law Research Centre in Nairobi, wrote in a newspaper article
that though the Bill is fairly uncontroversial, it does not deal with the
contentious issue of labelling. ?But Kenya?s main market for agricultural
exports is Europe, where labelling requirements are strict and consumers are
generally more sceptical of GMOs.?

She felt that lack of provisions on labelling will jeopardise this
valuable trade besides influencing parliamentary debate. Her sentiments were
echoed last week by the Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum (KESSFF), which was
categorical that farmers in the country stand to lose them European market
once their products are associated with genetic modification.

?Consumers in the international markets are now after organically
produced foods, but here we are being pressurised to raise GM crops... What
will happen to the market for our products is anybody?s guess,? said the
treasurer of KESSFF Justus Lavi.

?Our fear is that we will end up losing our traditional seed varieties
and get hooked to expensive varieties from Monsanto and other international
biotechnology companies,? said Gerald Ngatia, a member of the Kenya
Biodiversity Coalition.

He added that once this happens, Kenyan farmers will not only be
forced to buy the seeds, but also chemicals and especially pesticides
emanating from these companies to ensure the survival of their crops.

Another contentious issue is the fact that the Bill does not address
food coming into Kenya as aid. In the past, there have been claims that
international agencies that distribute food relief in Kenya during periods
of famine and other natural calamities could have triggered off the entry of
GM products. For instance, there has been a lingering suspicion that food
aid, especially maize, brought into the country by USAid and such bodies as
the World Food Programme might be from genetically modified stocks.

Dr Wambugu conceded that food relief from the US is genetically
modified. This feeling is strengthened by the fact that in the US, between
50 and 70 per cent of the maize grown is genetically modified. ?There is
also a policy in the two organisations not to discriminate between GM and
non-GM foods when offering them as relief,? said Dr Daniel Maingi of ANAW
Biowatch, an anti-GMO organisation based in Nairobi.

?For the draft Bill to proceed, the debate needs to move beyond
scientists and policymakers to encompass open public discussions with all
stakeholders, including farmer groups,? wrote Prof Mbote.

The Kenyan public, the anti-Bill lobby says, need to first be educated
to understand what biotechnology is all about as well as the potential
implications of consuming genetic modified foods. This is because evidence
collected during past surveys suggests most Kenyans do not have any idea of
what the two terms ? biotechnology and genetic modification ? entail.

?It is very important for decision makers, leaders, farmers,
pastoralists, fisher folk, traders and consumers to distinguish the
difference between the two terms and their implications before allowing the
Bill to be discussed in parliament,? says a statement released last week to
the media by the Kenya Biosafety Coalition.

On her part, Prof Mbote calls for ?unbiased information? to be
provided on the benefits as well as risks of GMOs so that demand for GM
regulations will be based on knowledge rather than on speculation or vested
interests.


[www.nationmedia.com]