Subscribe
Kenya’s farmers and government are now free to cultivate and import Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) after the High Court dismissed consolidated petitions challenging a Cabinet order to lift a 10-year ban on GM crops and foods in the East African county.
Upon his election in 2022, President William Ruto, a scientist by training, signed an executive order to lift a 10-year ban that had been slapped on the growth and cultivation of GMOs.
The Environment and Land Court made a ruling on the case dismissing it for lack of scientific evidence, with dissatisfied litigants appealing the judgement.
The move sparked multiple court cases, with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), alongside individual and consortiums of activists expressing fear that the import or cultivation of GMO foods might be harmful for human health, animals, the environment and biodiversity.
Among other accusations, LSK argued that the decision was made without public consultation and that the lifting of the ban violated consumer rights and the interests of small-scale farmers, among others. Some petitioners claimed that cultivation and import of GM foods, especially maize, had been sanctioned without the necessary environmental impact assessment report.
One of the multiple petitioners had also claimed that the ban’s lifting was rushed, lacked public participation and would result in massive loss of indigenous seed varieties. Yet another petitioner had argued that it would lead to the dominance of genetically modified seeds protected by patents, undermining small farmers.
In its ruling, the High Court affirmed that the issue had already been addressed by the Environment and Land Court, which enjoys similar status as the former, in a previous judgment, describing it as res judicata (meaning, the issue had already been decided). The Environment and Land Court ruling that the High Court made reference to had said that LSK failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that GMOs pose a threat to the environment or human health.
“With all these institutions, save for NEMA which has not issued an Environmental Impact Assessment Licence, we should be confident that our health and environment are in good hands. It cannot be true that they have all conspired to expose the rest of the population to the alleged calamities alluded to in the petition, at least not from the evidence on record,” read in part the ruling from the Environment and Land Court.
“The evidence before this court shows that the country has put in place robust mechanisms, including a robust biosafety regulatory framework with inbuilt structures, which must be met before they consider and determine applications approval and transfer, handling and use of genetically modified organisms,” further read the ruling.
The court highlighted the role of the Kenya Biosafety Act of 2009, which states that the Kenya National Biosafety Authority, in collaboration with the Department of Public Health in the Ministry of Health, shall ensure food safety and consumer protection. Further, the court stressed that the act provided a legal framework for the safe handling, transfer and use of GMOs as well as oversees and regulates these activities.
Moreover, the act required that GMOs undergo rigorous safety assessments before approval, and the court found that such safeguards were indeed in place.
A majority of leading scientists from top research organisations, including local universities and individual institutions, hailed the dismissal of the petitions, describing it as a major win for science, farmers and the broader Kenyan population.
Richard Oduor, the chair of the Kenya University Biotech Consortium, for instance, expressed his excitement, emphasising that the ruling provides an opportunity for Kenyan farmers to explore biotechnology solutions that could boost their crop yields.
"Local farmers will now have the opportunity to sample the technology we have been developing. Kenya was now lagging behind in adopting a technology that has been proven safe and effective in other parts of the world," said Oduor, adding that GMO technology has been in use for nearly 30 years and that Kenya should follow the example of other food-secure countries on the continent like South Africa that have successfully adopted it.
Several science-centric advocacy groups have highlighted how misinformation about GMOs has created confusion across Africa, with Kenya among countries with highest levels of misinformation / fake news globally regarding GMOs, despite the long history of safe use world over.
The use of GMO approval in Kenya aligns with trends across Africa, where several countries have already approved cultivation and importation of GM crops. South Africa, for example, has been growing GM cotton, maize and soybeans for years, while other nations like Nigeria, Ethiopia and Malawi have also adopted GM varieties for crops such as cotton and maize.
Some food security experts view the move as timely, considering the ongoing food security challenges in Kenya, where almost four million citizens in arid and semi-arid regions, especially in the northern parts of the country, face high levels of acute food insecurity. The specialists believe the introduction of GM crops could also help improve agricultural productivity and food security, benefiting millions of smallholder farmers and reducing poverty and hunger.
But opinion remains split among a small section of scientists in the activism world, with the like of Nasike Clare, a leading agro-ecologist and researcher, protesting the move and describing it as ill-advised.
“Lifting the ban will expose small-scale farmers to exorbitant seed prices and tie them down in the cycle of debt and some draconian intellectual property laws by giant multinationals fronting GMOs. The move will also interfere with Kenya’s agricultural biodiversity and ecological balance of our soils,” said Nasike, adding that mass usage of GM seeds comes with heavy commercial use of agrochemicals, such as pesticides and fertilisers that will ultimately end up polluting water bodies.
The lifting of the ban is also likely to have a far-reaching domino effect across the East African region, considering the ban had a similar chain reaction that saw other countries follow suit, complete with related legislation frenzy.
