Opposition or Engagement? Civil society perspectives on biosafety regulation in Kenya

Opposition or Engagement? Civil society perspectives on biosafety

regulation in Kenya:

Wanjiru Kamau

Lobbying and Advocacy Manager

(KOAN)

Objectives

By the end of this presentation, participants should;

Understand how CSOs in Kenya have engaged in the Biosafety Legislation

the key concerns CSOs have with the adoption of GM crops

Have an appreciation of how GM crops will impact on farmers

Biotechnology in Agriculture

The push for biotech crops is based on the following reasons

That it is necessary for feeding the world

It is required to reduce poverty in Developing countries

GMOs in Kenya

CSO engagement in Biosafety Legislation

Kenya Biodiversity Coalition (KBioC)

-is a consortium of more than 70 Farmer organizations, Animal welfare networks, Consumer networks; Faith based organizations; and Community based groups

- Members are stakeholders and have an interest and work in the areas of Environment, Agriculture and Biodiversity

CSO Engagement

KBioC was formed on 21st July 2007 during a one day seminar that was organised by a few like minded civil society organisations and farmer groups.

From early 90s Kenya GMO Concern Coalition (KEGCO), a programme under PELUM (K) had been creating awareness on issues of concern on GMOs to the Kenyan citizens.

Concerns about GMOs and their regulation

Regulation of GMOs Biosafety Act now in place since February 2009

which seeks to institute the regulatory framework

Challenges In the US, regulation of GMOs is under 3 federal

agencies each having regulatory authority over different aspects of GMO development ,production and marketing.

A similar situation is unfolding in Kenya with Kephis, KEBS, NEMA and NBA. This scenario often present challenges of overlaps and gaps

What are the facts

GMO Export permits for Jan 2010 from the Directorate of Biosafety, SA

GMO_permits2010.doc Requirements for Export permit to be given

Export LMO.doc

Concerns: GMO contracts

Farmers required to sign technology contracts e.g In the US, Monsanto requires that farmers using their GM seeds to sign Annual Technology Agreement

The farmers do not get an opportunity to negotiate the terms of agreement i.e. take it or leave it basis

Farmers may be bound by the terms and conditions by simply opening a bag of seed containing GM technology

GM Contracts

One court in the US held that the farmer was liable for illegally saving Round Ready Soya even though he did not sign the TA because he opened and planted bags of the seed

GM contracts: Seed Use

Poor CSO engagement in process

Participation in Biosafety workshop was organized by the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) the following day 26th July 2007 to discuss Biosafety Bill

Dialogue meeting with key policy makers including Dr. Noah Wekesa Minister of National Science and Technology,Dr. Songa the Agricultural Secretary

Poor engagement cont’d

In 2007/8, 3 Breakfast Meetings were organised with MPs to build their capacities on GMOs and the weaknesses in the Biosafety Bill

Engagement of Hon Silas Muriuki to lobby against the Weak Biosafety Bill and push for the adoption of the Alternative Biosafety and Biotechnology Bill

Exposure of the GM maize import scandal in March 2010

World Food Day Celebrations 2007

Biosafety Act and CSO representation

Lack of transparency

Risk and Liability Inadequately addressed

In Section 28 of BSA on non assessment of Risk

The law makes provision for non assessment of risk…. Where it determines that sufficient experience or information exists to conclude that the GMO… does not pose significant risk

Testing of seed maize by KBioC

GMOs and Hunger

This is based on the assumption that there is a gap between population growth and food production

Reality

There is more food produced today than ever before. In 1999,there was enough grain to feed a population of 8 billion people yet there were 6 billion in the year 2000.

GMOs and Hunger…

Globalisation has further compounded hunger due to embracing of free trade practices advocated by international lending agencies.

e.g. Haiti in 1986 imported only 7000 tonnes of Rice, ten years later the amount stood at almost 200,000 tonnes at a cost of 100m USD

The real causes are poverty, inequality and lack of access to food and land. Will these issues be addressed by GMOs?

Do GMOs increase yields:

Research done by USDA comparing GE and conventional crops showed in

1997, 7/12 showed no significant difference in yields between the two.

1998, in 12/18 crops showed no difference. In some areas, GE crop yields were lower than conventional ones

Refuge Crops: Yield losses are made worse in crops like maize as it is mandatory to leave 20% of the land as refuge for GM crops in a bid to delay resistance to pests

GM crops and yields

Cotton yields

In the US,cotton yields stagnated during the period of cotton adoptation

Economic returns of conventional cotton were higher or equal to GM varieties (Joest et al ,2008)

GM and yield; Summary

Do GMOs reduce use of pesticides?

In India use of pesticide has actually increased in production of GM cotton

The toxin Bt that is genetically engineered is not biodegradable compared to the natural Bt toxin

Herbicide resistance technology in GM crops is done to consolidate profits and shift the cost from the pesticide to the seed e.g in US, illinois the adoption of Ht crops makes the most soyabean plus weed management system in modern history between 40 -60 USD/ acre compared to 26 in conventional seed

Will GMOs benefit resource poor farmers?.....

Cost and IPR seed is patented

and therefore protected

As a result the seed will be expensive therefore not sustainably within farmers’ reach

Any Benefits to farmers…

Beneficial traits e.g. drought resistance

These are polygenic i.e. determined by interaction of multiple genes,through a complex process which would take at least 10 years to develop

Biotech Companies are unlikely to want to invest this long before they can recoup returns

GM benefits? Corporate Control over seeds

Dependence on annual purchase of GM seed is

dangerous for food security

farmers will also have to abide with annual contracts from the multinationals

Access to technology by Govts

Access to the technology developed at great cost through PPPs could present a challenge due to intellectual property rights to genes by by the multinationals a case in point is Brazil which had to negotiate license agreements with nine different companies before a virus resistant papaya developed could be released to farmers

Market penalties

Marketplace penalties as a result of GM

In US, soyabean farmers experienced big drops in exports to European consumers from 11m to 6 million T in 1999, due to rejection of GMOs by European Consumers

Remember that Kenya exports most of her horticultural crops to the EU which earned us over 40B last year

GMOs and cross contamination

Risk of contamination particularly for cross polinated crops like maize and canola is high

Co-existence will be extremely difficult to effect and enforce particularly for smallholder farms

Threats to Biodiversity and genetic base for long term security

Canadian Farmer with GM contaminated Rape seed farm

Spilling the Beans Is Eli Lilly Milking Cancer by Promoting AND Treating It? by Jeffrey M. Smith

October 7, 2009

Breast Cancer Action and a coalition of consumer and health organizations have launched a campaign called Milking Cancer, where you can demand from Eli Lilly that they withdraw their dangerous bovine growth hormone from the market.

In August 2008, the huge drug company agreed to buy Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rbST or rbGH), which is injected into cows in the US to increase milk supply. It was an odd choice at the time. A reporter asked Lilly’s representative why on earth his veterinary division Elanco just paid $300 million for a drug that other companies wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. The drug’s days were obviously numbered. The former head of the American Medical Association has urged hospitals to stop using dairy products from rbGH-injected cows, the American Nurses Association came out against it, even Wal-Mart has joined the ranks of numerous retailers and dairies loudly proclaiming their cows are rbGH-free. In fact, Monsanto’s stock rose by almost 5% when the sale was announced, and Eli Lilly’s dropped by nearly 1%.

The main reason for the unpopularity of this hormone, which is banned in most other industrialized countries, is the danger of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Dozens of studies confirm that IGF-1, which accelerates cell division, substantially increases the risk of breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. Normal milk contains IGF-1, milk drinkers have higher levels of IGF-1, and the milk from cows injected with Eli Lilly’s drug has much greater amounts of IGF-1. You can connect the dots.

Health risks and GMOs

Summary of challenges

Engagement of policy makers in an environment highly pressurised by pro GM lobby groups

Management of conflict of interest brought on by the PPP

Limited resources and capacity of CSOs Scientific evidence vis a vis precautionary

approach to risk particularly to health and food safety

Low awareness about Biotech and Biosafety in the public

Do sustainable alternatives exist? Maize

Cotton Smallholder farmers face

complexity of problems Solutions should be locally

available,economical and ecological embracing farming systems that have higher diversity and nutritional intensity

E.g. India exports cotton while at the same time importing pulses to feed its people

Thank you

Tel: +254 20 2610863

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.koan.co.ke

Physical Location: ICIPE Complex,

off Kasarani Road

For More information visit/contact us on: