By Obadiah Ayoti

Kenya is faced with a dilemma on whether or not it should enact the
Biosafety Bill to regulate activities of Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs).
The Biosafety Bill 2008 which is set be tabled in Parliament has elicited
divergent views with anti-GMOs groups saying the technology poses a threat
to human and animal health while pro-GMOs see it as a panacea to low yields.

The Bill provides for the formation of a National Biosafety Authority (NBA)
that will among other things ensure that research on genetically modified
products, their importation and commercialization are carried out in a safe
manner.

Although the authority will also be charged with the responsibility of
administering the law and promote public awareness and education regarding
GM activities, it fails to recognise public participation as a basic right.

This shortcoming has prompted a group of civil society to vehemently oppose
the Bill on grounds that all the stakeholders were not consulted during the
drafting stage.

But Kenya?s Agriculture Minister William Ruto expresses optimism that the
Bill will be enacted in order to legalize GMOs so as to increase food
production in the country.

The Minister says the controversial technology was the best solution to
perennial low yields, diseases and hunger in a country whose economy is
directly hinged on agriculture.

Addressing a recent regional workshop on development of a Bio-safety
Communication Strategy for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
(COMESA), Ruto accused some developed nations of spearheading a smear
campaign to discourage developing countries such as Kenya from adopting GMOs
which will go along way in tackling poverty and hunger.

?It is ironical that some developed economies have launched a well
coordinated scheme to discredit bio-technology in Africa while their food is
produced using the same technology. We must treat these acts of double-speak
with contempt they deserve and adopt the all-important technology to boost
our food production,? said Ruto.

He dismissed reservations expressed against GMOs saying they are based on
rumours and hearsay being perpetuated by people with vested interests
without scientific backing.

According to the minister, bio-technology was the best way to make
agriculture profitable and guarantee food security in Africa which is facing
severe hunger.

?We are obliged to adopt this appropriate technology to guarantee high
productivity so that we can be in a position to feed the ever increasing
population. The cost of GMO maize is about one-and-a half times cheaper than
conventional maize,? added Ruto.

During the forum, COMESA member states unanimously agreed to develop a
unified approach on the dissemination of information on biotechnology to
boost its uptake in the region.

The road to legislation of the Biosafety Bill has been long and murky
characterized with raging debates, demonstrations, legal tussles and
grandstanding.

Kenya ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003 which regulates
trans-boundary movement of GMOs and minimizing any perceived risks to human
health and environment.

One of the key obligations to the implementation of the legally binding
protocol was to review existing policy and legal environment and determine
the adequacy in regulation of modern biotechnology by the parties.

In line with the protocol, the government passed the National Biotechnology
and Biosafety Policy in 2006 which paved way for the formulation of
Biosafety Bill to implement the policy.

Although there is no law on biotechnology in the country, Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute (KARI), Kenya Seed Company (KSC) and local universities
have been spearheading research on GMO since 1998.

These organizations have been carrying out research on transgenic maize,
sweet potato, cassava, cotton and rinderpest vaccine.

However, the urge for the new law has not stopped experts from punching
holes in the Biosafety Bill 2008 which some say is too flawed to ensure
protection in safe transfer, handling and use of GMOs that may have adverse
effects on the environment and establish a transparent review process.

According to experts, the bill deals with applications for the contained
use, field trials, import, export and placement of GMOs on the market but
falls short in addressing the key issue of labeling especially after
commercialization.

This is set to impact negatively on Kenya's trade in genetically modified
goods with countries with strict labelling regime especially in Europe.

International Environmental Law Research Centre?s (IELRC) Prof Patricia
Kameri says the bill makes grave omission including failure to cover food
aid despite the fact that Kenya receives food aid from countries producing
GM crops.

At the same time, Kameri faults the bill especially the provision on
liability for any damage arising from GMOs saying it is vague and out of
line with Kenya's position in the Africa group in the Biosafety Protocol
negotiations.

?Whereas previous drafts proposed that an entity producing GMOs would be
liable in cases where damage was established, irrespective of whether the
entity was at fault, the current bill avoids this issue by stating that
liability and redress for any damage that occurs as a result of activities
subject to this act shall be addressed by applicable laws,? added Kameri.

Kameri?s sentiments are shared by a consortium of Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) which say this piece of legislation lacks the capacity
to ensure public safety and health as well as the country's biological
diversity are not jeopardised by GMOs.

The over 50 NGOs, community groups and consumer associations under the
auspices of the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition (KBC) argues that the bill
excludes more pertinent biosafety issues such as pharmaceutical drugs
obtained from crops and animals.

Last year, an NGO made good its threat and went to court to contest the
enactment into law the Biosafety Bill saying genetically modified foods have
adverse health effects on the people.

Africa Nature Stream (ANS) said Kenyan scientists lack capacity to alter the
genetic composition of organisms by mixing genes in the cellular and
molecular level in order to create new breeds of plants for human and animal
consumption.

The organization argued that production, sale and trade of genetically
modified organisms and food remains a controversial issue across the world
owing to the risk they pose to human and animal health, environmental
concerns, cultural and religious consideration.

According to ANS, GMOs have been known to cause various diseases which
include cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic fatigue, mental
disorder among other diseases.

As the debate on whether or not to adopt biotechnology rages in Kenya, other
countries in North and South America, Asia and some European countries are
registering increased acreage in land under GM crops.

The United States leads with over 50 million hectares under GM crops.
Argentina is second in line with 18 million hectares under GM crops.

Other significant producers of GM crops are Brazil with 11 million hectares,
Canada with over six million hectares and India with 3.8 million hectares.
China has three million hectares while Paraguay boasts of two million
hectares under GM crops.

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications (ISAAA), there are over 100 million hectares of land under GM
crops and over 10 million farmers have embraced biotechnology since 1996.

In Africa, South Africa leads the pack with 1.4 million hectares under GM
crops. The most popular GM crops are soybean, maize and cotton.

Others are canola, rice, squash, papaya and alfalfa. In some countries it is
mandatory to label GM foods and feeds in order to empower the consumers to
make informed choices on whether or not to consume them.
www.chechbiotech.org