Opposition or Engagement? Civil society perspectives on biosafety regulation in Kenya
-
Upload
steps-centre -
Category
Technology
-
view
491 -
download
3
description
Transcript of 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: