East Africa split over GMO use
Arusha. Should the East African Community (EAC) regulate or altogether ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?.
The controversial technology divided the regional lawmakers down the middle with some saying governments were not clear on the issue.
Ms Susan Nakawuki, an outspoken legislator from Uganda, had strongly agitated for the ban on health grounds.
“GMOs expose the community and threaten the people and the environment,” she said as she tabled her Private Member’s Motion on the issue.
However, Jean Claude Barimuyabo from Rwanda insisted that GMOs have some benefits to agricultural production provided that they were regulated.
“It is always good to regulate. The risk is too small; one percent at the minimum,” he told the House as the issue drew the attention of all members.
He said although Europe does not import GMOs trade products, they have been useful elsewhere in the world because they were strongly regulated.
He implored the EAC partner states to be cautious on whatever pathway they took on the technology since they have both benefits and drawbacks.
But he was categorical that the East African farmers should not waver in protecting “our original crops”.
Dr Woda Jeremiah Odok (South Sudan) argued that when they were first introduced, GMOs were seen to be a solution “for plentiful food production”.
“But now there are problems. There are genetically modified poultry and livestock complicating the matter,” she pointed out.
She said although she had advocated a “total ban” of the organisms in the food production chain, zero enforcement was difficult.
Dr Odok proposed that while the EA governments are still weighing on the pros and cons of GMOs, strong regulatory measures should be put in place.
In her motion, which incidentally was tabled hours before the 4th Assembly was dissolved, Ms Nakawuki said GMOs have “harmful effects” on human health and the environment.
She admitted she was forced to tone down her agitation for a total ban to regulation after consultation with legal experts at the EAC.
The Motion for a Resolution in which she sought leave of the Assembly to introduce a Bill to regulate the introduction of GMOs in the community was later adopted by the House.
Ms Nakawuki said although some EAC partner states have embraced biotechnology while others are undecided, GMOs are not an option for increased productivity.
Since they have been modified “in a way that does not occur naturally,” their harm to the health of people and the environment could not be ruled out.
Given the dilemma created by the modified organisms even among scientists, she argued measures should be put in place to contain any likely dangers.
“Any activity in which organisms are genetically modified or in which such genetically modified organisms are cultured, stored, used, transported, destroyed or disposed of, should be regulated,” she said.
The regulation should be in the form of physical barriers or a combination of physical barriers together with chemical or biological barriers.
The proposed bill will seek to limit the contact of GMOs with the environment “and with the people of East Africa” as among the regulatory measures.
The Ugandan lawmaker said it was unfortunate the development, production, release, use and application of GMOs was largely unregulated in the EAC “with the exception of Kenya.”
Absence of regulatory laws and policies to protect the people and the environment from the harmful effects, may have exposed them to the perceived dangers.
Ms Nakawuki may not see the Bill she proposed tabled before the House as her two five-year tenure as Eala member ended yesterday (Saturday) after the dissolution of the 4th Assembly.
However, she was emphatic that she expected to see new members of the 5th Assembly to be sworn in tomorrow (Monday) to pursue the matter to its conclusive end.
Her motion has come at a time when some EAC partner states are contemplating to embrace the technology in order to increase agricultural production. Kenya, for instance, lifted the ban on GMOs which was imposed in 2012 in order to address the food crisis occasioned by severe drought.
President William Ruto ignored calls for reversal of his Executive Order from the opposition, local cereal traders and a section of scientists to lift the ban allowing importation of GMO maize.
Immediately after the lifting of the ban on GMO maize imports in October this year, Tanzania vowed to remain on guard against any GMO product.
The minister for Agriculture, Mr Hussein Bashe, directed that no GMOs should be allowed “to seep out of Kenya into Tanzania” through the 750km long shared border.
Tanzania, he insisted, was not yet ready to embrace genetically modified technology in its entire bio economy value chain; agriculture, forestry, livestock and the like.
There was no need for the country to adopt and commercialise GMOs after the successful rollout of hybrid and open-pollinated crops.
Nevertheless, he said, matters pertaining to biotechnology are still being researched in the country “for better understanding and academic purpose”.
Debate on GMO trials in Tanzania has taken twists and turns over the years, often dividing both the experts and politicians over legal technicalities and safety concerns.
Several agricultural research institutions - public and private - have been involved in the trials at different times, often with end results not made public.
In the northern regions there had been deliberate attempts by the foreign companies in collaboration with local institutions or experts to promote such trials in Tanzania. The policy makers have, however, been cautious on discussing the issue although a cabinet minister told a meeting of experts in Arusha that genetically propagated seeds would boost yields.
It was until the end of 2021 that the government made the country’s stand public when it suspended GMO seed research trials and scrutiny on imported genetically engineered seeds.
The order made by the then Agriculture minister Prof Adolf Mkenda got a muted nod from the seeds stakeholders in Arusha and other northern regions. They questioned whether the directive was meant solely for GMO seeds, excluding seeds engineered from biotechnology given that Tanzania continues to rely on seeds imports. A farmers’ network called Mviwata Arusha, however, tasked the government to be wary of GMO technology in agriculture and instead invest in production of improved seed varieties. The lobby hastened to suggest that Tanzania should ditch the international protocols pertaining to GMO seeds on grounds they don’t serve the national interests.
“The laws that allow GMO trials in the country should be scrapped and if possible to do away with the international protocols on GMOs,” John Safari, Mviwata Arusha chairman said.
