This document provides a narrative of the passage of the Biosafety Bill, 2009, the Kenyan legislation that covers the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in that country. The authors' declared aim is ‘to document as accurately as possible the process of developing the Biosafety Law through three parliaments and two General Elections’. The document is divided into eight chapters that start with the period in 2000 when the then president of Kenya Daniel arap Moi became the first head of state to sign the Biosafety Protocol, a provision of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and a procedure designed to encourage investment in agricultural biotechnology. The narrative then proceeds in turn through the tortuous process of the various drafting stages of the bill, the course of the attempts at legislation, and its eventual approval. The decade covered by this process involved numerous workshops, interaction with supportive international agencies and the Kenyan version of ‘realpolitik’. It describes in much detail the personal recollection of those involved in negotiating through the battlefield of public opinion, political expediency, NGO opposition and media involvement. It concludes with lessons that the process may provide to any others in this position. The course of events is very familiar to anyone who has been involved in the various eras of transgenic controversy. The comment that one MP had eaten raw transgenic maize to prove that there was nothing to fear about the technology has echoes of a certain British MP, his daughter and a hamburger (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm). They authors of this report conclude that ‘The need for sustained political support to the whole process of deploying biotech products from research to commercialisation cannot be overstated’. The overall tone of the document is very supportive of modern biotechnology and it stresses the significant role to be played by such science in aiding the battle against food insecurity in developing countries. This is understandable since this publication was prepared under the aegis of ISAAA, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, an organisation funded by a consortium of donors, many from the commercial sector, but with some public institutions. Kenya is the only government listed among the direct sponsors and is considered to be a leading nation in the exploitation of biotechnology. The Kenyan Biotechnology Development Policy (2006) states that: ‘The government will adopt productivity-enhancing agricultural biotechnologies that can substantially reverse the fast deteriorating food security and nutrition, farm incomes, spawn the agro-industry and reduce environmental degradation.’ Opponents of transgenic methods in agriculture will not be slow to point out the contrast of this document with that published by the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology Development) in 2009. This report states: ‘Modern biotechnology has developed in too narrow a context to meet its potential to contribute to the small and subsistence farmer in particular. As tools the technologies in and of themselves cannot achieve sustainability and development goals.’ Therein lies the division of views that seem fundamentally irreconcilable. It is unlikely that the enthusiasm and predictions represented in this present report will change any individual's views of biotechnology. In summary, it is more likely that the audience for such a detailed narrative will be limited to those with an academic and specific interest in the political factors determining the uptake of GM technology. Those aiming to exploit the technology already know the issues only too well.
Read full abstract
Feb 1, 2011
Craig Ross + 3
Open Access