Kenya shouldn't be dumping ground for outdated GM technology

The precautionary principal states that, “when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures must be taken, even if cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

This was clearly echoed when a former minister for Public Health, Mrs Beth Mugo, announced a Cabinet decree that (supposedly) banned the importation of GM food products until a time when there was sufficient evidence to inform a reversal.

A basic function of an effective and caring government is to protect the health, safety, and prosperity of its citizens.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

In this case, the Cabinet demonstrated concern for human health when it stepped in and invoked the mandate of the public health regulator. Human safety was put before commercial interests.

However, that Cabinet decision was met by well-orchestrated and loud protests, especially from GMO supporters and professors.

Public health advocates around the world have increasingly invoked the precautionary principle as a basis for preventive actions.

And as far as environmental and food safety issues are concerned, the precautionary principle is a legal principle embodied in an international treaty that seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology.

BIOSAFETY

It also facilitates its implementation through a biosafety clearing house for information exchange.

As far as GMOs are concerned, the law requires public awareness and participation and establishes a compliance procedure that incorporates the principle of advance informed agreement (AIA).

This provides the legal basis for making available to citizens information that can enable them to make informed decisions before agreeing to the importation or transiting of GMOs in their territory.

It is against this background that I salute Makueni MP Daniel Maanzo for his watchfulness and boldness.

In July 2014, the MP blew the whistle in Parliament when he asked why Aromat was being sold openly while there was a ban on the importation of such food products.

Undoubtedly, commercial interests were allowed to run amok, while citizens were not given an opportunity to exercise their right to information before consuming this evidently biotechnology product.

Public health actions should always consider risks as well as benefits. It is conceivable that even with complete foreknowledge of the adverse consequences, the public health action would be seen as beneficial overall.

GMO MAIZE

However, in many cases, the benefits are overstretched and overstated to advance commercial interests and not enough is done to explore alternative and sustainable solutions.

This was evident in the recent call by the National Biosafety Authority for comments on open cultivation of a GMO maize variety (Bt maize) in Kenya. This particular trait is outdated since it is now almost 20 years since it was first deployed.

Furthermore, scientific evidence from South Africa and the US — whose agricultural practices we aim to copy — has shown that this GMO technology has long expired.

The insect pests that it purports to fend off have learned to bore through the Bt maize without being wiped out.

Surely, even if this Bt gene was a generous gift from “on high”, should we not exercise the precautionary principal and not harm our environment by releasing this GMO variety?

Importing GM food products was banned through a Cabinet decision. If properly implemented, we would have the confidence that our human health is not sacrificed on the altars of commercial interests and regulatory incompetence.

This GM food import ban should stay lest we witness cases reminiscent of the Chinese melamine milk scandal that made more than 300,000 babies ill in 2008, while the dairy industry sang all the way to the bank.

Likewise, releasing this biotech maize into our environment would be the wrong move now.

It would irreversibly harm our maize value chain through contamination and Kenya would become a dumping ground for outdated and expensive biotechnology that no one else wants and which is ineffective against the stem borers that this expensive technology is supposed to avert.

In the meantime, and because of the copious amounts of pollen that this maize releases into the environment, no one would ever be able to claim their unga (maize meal) is GMO free, effectively removing the right of choice to opt out.

The writer is a community development and environmental practitioner and a member of the Kenya Food Rights Alliance. [email protected]