The High Court of Kenya has dismissed multiple petitions challenging the government’s decision to lift a decade-long ban on genetically modified organisms (GMO) food, affirming that the matter had already been addressed by the Environment and Land Court (ELC) last year. This ruling comes in the wake of a Cabinet dispatch in October 2022 that lifted the ban originally imposed in 2012, a move that has sparked significant debate and concern among various stakeholders.
The ban was initially enacted due to fears regarding the potential harm of GMO foods to human health, animals, and the environment. However, the government, under the Kenya Kwanza administration, has argued that lifting the ban is essential to mitigating the current high cost of food in the country. The Cabinet’s decision was gazetted on October 26, 2022, and aimed to facilitate the introduction of GMO crops that could withstand drought and pest pressures, thereby improving food security.
Among those contesting the lifting of the ban was lawyer Paul Mwangi, who raised alarms about the implications for small-scale farmers and the risk of indigenous seeds disappearing. He emphasized concerns regarding the introduction of genetically modified crops developed with genetic use restriction technology (GURT), which includes the controversial “terminator gene.” This gene prevents seeds from germinating after the first harvest, effectively locking farmers into purchasing new seeds each season. Mwangi’s petitions highlighted fears that the shift toward GMO crops could undermine traditional farming practices and biodiversity.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi, in his ruling, reiterated that the ELC had already examined the safety measures in place to regulate GMO crops. He pointed out that the court had previously concluded that Kenya possesses a robust biosafety regulatory framework, designed to ensure that any GMO crops imported or cultivated meet stringent safety standards. The ruling noted that the ELC’s findings were in alignment with the need for a clean and healthy environment, thereby reinforcing the government’s position on the safety of GM foods.
The court’s dismissal of the petitions, citing the principle of res judicata, indicates that the legal challenges to the ban’s lifting have been thoroughly addressed and cannot be revisited. This sets a significant precedent for future discussions surrounding biotechnology in agriculture, particularly as the government seeks to navigate the complex landscape of food security, agricultural productivity, and public health.
As the agricultural sector grapples with rising costs for inputs such as fertilizers and animal feeds, the implications of this ruling could be far-reaching. The government hopes that by embracing GMO technology, farmers will be able to increase yields and reduce reliance on costly inputs, ultimately leading to lower food prices for consumers. However, the concerns raised by petitioners reflect a broader apprehension about the long-term impacts of GMO crops on traditional farming methods and food sovereignty.
With ongoing research into drought-tolerant GMO maize varieties, the government is poised to make significant strides in addressing food insecurity. However, the balance between innovation and the preservation of indigenous agricultural practices remains a critical conversation that stakeholders will need to navigate as the country moves forward in its agricultural policies.
