New Biotechnology  Volume 30, Number 2  January 2013

RESEARCH PAPER

Review

Africas inevitable walk to genetically

modified (GM) crops: opportunities and
challenges for commercialization
James A. Okeno1, Jeffrey D. Wolt1, Manjit K. Misra1 and Lulu Rodriguez2
1
2

Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products (BIGMAP), Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3228, USA
Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1180, USA

High relative poverty levels in Africa are attributed to the continents under performing agriculture.
Drought, low-yielding crop varieties, pests and diseases, poor soils, low fertilizer use, limited
irrigation and lack of modern technologies are among the problems that plague African agriculture.
Genetically modified (GM) crops may possess attributes that can help overcome some of these
constraints, but have yet to be fully embraced in the mix of technology solutions for African
agriculture. Cognizant of this, South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt are steadily growing GM crops on
a commercial scale. Countries like Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda are increasingly field-testing these
crops with the view to commercialize them. These countries show strong government support for GM
technology. Progress by these first adopter nations provides an insight as to how GM crops are
increasingly being viewed as one of the ways in which the continent can invigorate the agriculture
sector and achieve food security.
Contents
Background and introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Government commitment and political will . . . . . . . .
Development of legislative and regulatory frameworks .
GMO legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GMO regulations and guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
National biotechnology strategy/policy . . . . . . . . . .
Support for GM technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public awareness for informed decision-making . . . . . .
Capacity to handle approval processes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kenya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inadequate public investment in biotech R&D . . . .
Cartagena protocol on biosafety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Socio-economic concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mandatory labeling of GMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

125
126
126
126
126
127
127
127
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
129
129
129

Corresponding author: Okeno, J.A. (jaketch@iastate.edu, james.okeno@nepadbiosafety.net)

124

www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt

1871-6784/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2012.09.001

Provisions for public participation in approval process

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

Background and introduction

Sub-Saharan Africa (hereafter, Africa) entered the 21st century
grappling with starvation and food insecurity. Currently, it is
experiencing unprecedented levels of poverty, famine and malnutrition. Actually, it registered the worlds highest proportion of
undernourished people (30%) in 2010 [1]. The growth in poverty
and hunger in this region is linked to under performing agricultural sector [2], and conversely, a vigorous agricultural sector is
necessary to reduce poverty, improve nutrition and upgrade
income of the poorest members of the society particularly in
agriculture-based African economies [3,4]. The threat of Africas
low agricultural productivity could be addressed by innovative
science [5]. In the continent, cereal production remains conspicuously low compared to the rest of the world as shown in Table 1 [6],
yet most African farmers have land assets that are adequate to
provide food security and to rise above subsistence. To do so, they
need to sustainably intensify production by combining genetic
and agro-ecological technologies that require only small amounts
of additional labor and capital [7].
The application of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has
been proposed within the technology mix to improve Africas
agricultural productivity [8,9]. But Africa took a long time to
embrace GM technology, primarily due to lack of political support
or political will, lack of access to proprietary technologies, scientific uncertainties and anti-GMO activism. However, increasing
food insecurity, rapid scientific and technological advances and
increasing commercialization of GM crops elsewhere have led to a
paradigm shift, moving the debate on GMOs from the confines of
scientific and environmental groups to the center of public policy
and politics in Africa [10]. But GM technology is not a silver bullet
and needs to be applied alongside the conventional crop improvement approaches.
The benefits that can be derived from GM crops are now
becoming evident in Africa. In South Africa, cumulative farm
income benefits were $643.4 million from insect resistant (IR)
maize (20002009), $23.1 million from IR cotton (19982009),
$4.5 million from herbicide tolerant (HT) soybeans (20012009)
and $2.5 million from HT maize (20032009) [11]. For Burkina

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

129
129
129
130

Faso, the total aggregate farm income gain in 2009 was $14.7
million and $15.6 million over two-year period (20082009) [11].
Some ex ante economic impact analyses in Africa also indicate
benefits from growing GM crops. In West Africa, growing Bt cotton
can earn net benefits per year of $767 million for Mali, $552
million for Benin, $441 million for Burkina Faso, $438 million
for Cote dIvoire and $17 million for Senegal [12]. If Benin were to
grow Bt cowpea, the net benefits would be $1150 million per year
[13]. Ghana would reap net returns of $920/ha if it grows GM
tomato that is resistant to tomato yellow leaf curl virus, $1542/ha
from GM cabbage that is resistant to Diamondback moth and
$784/ha from GM African eggplant that is resistant to shoot and
fruit borer [14]. By delaying the approval of GM banana, Uganda
foregoes potential annual benefits ranging from about $179 million to $365 million per year [15].
Cognizant of these benefits, some African countries have placed
more energy in field-testing and the commercial production of GM
crops. The area devoted to GM crops in South Africa has expanded
considerably since 1998 so that by 2010, it stood at 2.2 million
hectares [16]. Burkina Faso first commercially planted IR cotton in
2008 on 8500 ha [17]. That acreage has increased to 115,000 ha by
2009 [18] and 260,000 ha by 2010, indicating a 126% growth rate
and an adoption rate of 65% [16]. Egypt first commercially planted
IR maize in 2008 on 700 ha [17], an area that has widened to about
1000 ha in 2009 [18]. In 2010, the area devoted to IR maize has
remained the same, due to Egypts inability to secure a license for
the supply of seeds [19]. Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria are now fieldtesting more GM crops in wider swaths of land.
Without a political will and government support, a country
bears the brunt of non-functional legislative and regulatory frameworks, negligible investment in biotech R&D, low public awareness [1922] and inability to handle approval processes. The
political dimension of GMOs was (and still is) the outstanding
problem on GMO-regulation worldwide [23]. In Africa, the lack of
political will for GM technology widely observed in most countries is mainly attributed to Africas policy-making elites who often
were educated in Europe, send their children to European schools/
colleges, and travel frequently to Europe both on official and

TABLE 1

Yield estimates of selected cereals in Africa compared with the rest of the world
Crop

Yield (kg/ha)
Africa

Asia

South America

North America

Europe

World

Maize

1942.2

4378.8

3842.1

10,271.6

6061.4

5161.9

Rice, paddy

2612.3

4390.4

4793.5

7941.3

6137.7

4328.7

Wheat

2543.8

2957.3

2028.6

2923.0

3741.3

3038.8

Barley

1665.2

1912.3

2333.4

3463.1

3448.1

2814.0

Sorghum

904.1

1096.3

2873.0

4354.8

4451.4

1403.5

Millet

722.6

883.9

1724.3

1886.8

1191.7

792.5

Source: FAOSTAT [6].

www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt

125

Review

New Biotechnology  Volume 30, Number 2  January 2013

REVIEW

New Biotechnology  Volume 30, Number 2  January 2013

unofficial business. These elites prefer highly precautionary European-style regulations for GMOs, despite the fact that Africas
needs and circumstances are so different from those of Europe [24].
This paper reviews the extent to which the governments of South
Africa, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria the six
first adopter nations are committed to GM technology. It describes
the state of affairs in GM R&D and outlines the challenges these
nations face in integrating GM technology into their food production systems. Progress on adoption of GM crops despite challenges
that have been faced by these countries provides a roadmap for
eventual wider adoption of GM crops throughout Africa.

Government commitment and political will

Review

A government commitment to GMOs is evidenced by the establishment of clear and transparent regulatory frameworks, support
for GMOs, public awareness strategy and increased capacity in
approval process. These elements are discussed separately in detail
in the following sections.

Development of legislative and regulatory frameworks

GMO legislation
Legislations and policies must be in place to build a countrys
competence to handle biotech R&D and commercialization
(Table 2). Elements of biosafety frameworks to regulate GM products are statutes passed by parliament and specific GMO regulations linked to these statutes that are implemented and
administered by a designated department or ministry. Whereas
developed countries throughout the world have long-standing
regulatory regimes extending as far back as outcomes of the
Asilomar Conference [25], African nations are late to the table
in terms of both their technical and procedural knowledge of how
products derived from DNA technologies should be regulated. The
promulgation of new laws and implementing regulations and
guidelines to deal with GMOs has, therefore, represented a very
steep learning curve for Africa. South Africa was the first country in
Africa to take this step in the GMO Act No. 15 of 1997 and its
amendments (GMO Act No. 23, 2006). Egypt has, since 2006,
reviewed successive drafts of a proposed, comprehensive biosafety
bill, while currently using Ministerial Decree No. 1648 (1998) as
the legal foundation for commercialization [26]. Burkina Faso
passed a GMO Act in 2006, whereas Kenya enacted its biosafety
law in 2009. Nigerias biosafety act was endorsed by the House and
Senate in 2011, and currently awaits Presidential assent. Ugandas

Draft Biosafety Bill is still pending. These legal frameworks share

important aspects that allow for GMO development to move
forward and do not specify strict liability and redress as well as
not advocating for stringent precautionary measures before
approval. By contrast, for example, Zambias Biosafety Law advocates taking preventive measures even where there is lack of
scientific evidence on the threats of any damage of GMOs to
socio-economic conditions, human and animal health, nongenetically modified crops, biological diversity or the environment. Furthermore, it requires a person who cultivates any genetically modified crop to prevent any contamination or commingling
of the genetically modified crop with any non-genetically modified crop, failure to which he/she commits an offence and is liable
upon conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand
penalty units or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years, or both. In addition, Zambias Biosafety Law advocates a
strict liability for any harm caused by the genetically modified
organism or its product and compensation to any person to whom
the harm is caused. These standards for approval of GM crops in
Zambia have been described as prohibitively high [27], favoring
greater protection against perceived risks. Countries adopting this
stance would like to see benefits without significant risk and
adverse socio-economic impact. Zero risk is neither practically
achievable nor scientifically defensible, and so these statutes
essentially close the door to GM crops in countries where they
have been adopted.

GMO regulations and guidelines

A GM-enabling environment is anchored on regulations and
guidelines that specify the conditions for research, field trials,
and commercialization. South Africa, Burkina Faso, Egypt and
Kenya already regulate the commercialization of GM products.
Nigeria aims to move activities from CFTs to the commercialization phase, whereas Uganda must first enact its Biosafety Bill
before commercialization can occur. Egypt empowered its Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR) to issue three
enabling decrees: Ministerial Decree No. 85 (January 25, 1995),
which established the National Biosafety Committee (NBC); Ministerial Decree No. 136 (February 7, 1995), which promulgated
biosafety regulations and guidelines for GMO research and field
trials; and Ministerial Decree No. 1648 (1998), which governs
GMO commercialization [26]. South Africa published its initial
GMO regulation in 1999 and has amended it several times,

TABLE 2

Enabling legislative and regulatory frameworks for approval of biotech crops in 1st six biotech adopter nations in Africa
Country

Regulatory framework
Biosafety act/bill

Biosafety regulations/guidelines

Biotech policy/strategy

South Africa

Biosafety Act No. 2 1997

GMO Regulations 1999

Draft GMO Regulations 2008

National Biotechnology Strategy 2001

Burkina Faso

Biosafety Act 2006

GMO Regulations and Guidelines 2004

No stand-alone Biotech Policy

Egypt

Draft Biosafety Bill 2006

Ministerial Decree No. 136 of 1995

Ministerial Decree No 1648 of 1998

No stand-alone Biotech Policy

Kenya

Biosafety Act No. 2 2009

Biosafety Regulations 2011

National Biotechnology Policy 2006

Uganda

Draft National Biotechnology

Safety Bill 2008

CFT Guidelines 2006

National Biotechnology and

Biosafety Policy 2008

Nigeria

Biosafety Act 2011

Biosafety Guidelines 2001

National Biosafety Policy 2006

126

www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt

New Biotechnology  Volume 30, Number 2  January 2013

REVIEW

TABLE 3

Country

Crops & Trait

Category A: GM crops in commercial production

South Africa
Burkina Faso
Egypt

HT soybean, IR cotton, HT cotton, stacked IR/HT cotton, IR maize, HT maize, stacked IR/HT maize
IR cotton
IR maize

Category B: GM crops concluded or on-going in confined field trials (CFTs)

South Africa
IR cotton, IR maize, HT soybean, HT maize, IR potatoes, antimicrobial sugarcane, DT maize, HT wheat
Burkina Faso
IR cotton, IR cowpea
Egypt
IR and ST cotton, IR potato, VIR potato, VIR cucumber, VIR melon, DT and ST wheat
Black sigatoka (fungal) and nematode resistant banana, bio-fortified banana, bacterial (Xanthomonas)
Uganda
resistant banana, IR/HT cotton, VIR cassava, DT maize
Kenya
VIR sweet potato, IR cotton, IR maize, DT maize, bio-fortified sorghum
Nigeria
IR cowpea, bio-fortified cassava, bio-fortified sorghum
HT = herbicide tolerant; IR = insect resistant; DT = drought tolerant; VIR = virus resistant; ST = stress (salinity) tolerant.

culminating in a new draft regulation in 2008. Burkina Faso

developed and adopted its GMO regulations and guidelines by
government decree in June 2004 [28]. Kenya developed and
approved provisional biosafety regulations in 1998 and 2006 for
import, contained trials and small scale CFTs. With the enactment
of the biosafety legislation (the Biosafety Act of 2009), Kenya
published its GMO regulation in 2011. Nigeria uses biosafety
guidelines approved in 2001, whereas Uganda has guidelines for
CFT (2006) and the containment of GMOs and microbes (2007)
under existing legislation.

National biotechnology strategy/policy

The first adopter biotech countries that recognized modern
biotechnology as an engine for economic growth have strong
national biotech strategies and policies. South Africa approved
its National Biotechnology Strategy in 2001 [29], which
addresses human resource development, funding, regulatory
and legal issues and support to close the gap between R&D
and commercialization [30]. Kenya approved its National Biotechnology Development Policy in 2006, emphasizing the governments commitment to put in motion an appropriate and
adequate legal regulatory framework and foster an environment
that will attract investors. The country also took actions to
accelerate the development of its biotechnology programs
[31]. Nigeria and Uganda also have approved national biotechnology policies. Egypt and Burkina Faso have no stand-alone
biotechnology policies but use various government policies on
biotech and biosafety issues [32].

Support for GM technology

The overt support from political leaders is crucial in advancing GM
acceptance in Africa. In early March 2011, South Africas Deputy
Agriculture Minister Pieter Mulder said If we are really serious
about food security in Africa, emotional propaganda regarding GM
will never get us anywhere [33]. This echoes the sentiments of
Burkina Fasos President Blaise Compaore who underscored in
2004 that Its imperative for Africa. . . to resolutely focus on an
agriculture policy that works by adapting scientific research and
new technologies to the needs of the rural populations [34]. In
Kenya, former President Daniel arap Moi wrote a letter in 2000 to
then US President Bill Clinton requesting assistance in modern

biotechnology [35]. Mois successor Mwai Kibaki also strongly

supports modern biotechnology. Inaugurating a level II biosafety
greenhouse in 2004, Kibaki said that There is evidence that
countries that have embraced modern agricultural technologies
have improved economic performance, reduced poverty and
ensured greater food security for their people [36].
Apart from the above political statements, governments of
pioneer biotech countries have provided resources for the support
of biotechnology R&D. For example, the government of Kenya
continues to fund Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), a
major research institute involved in GMO research [37]. KARI,
with funds obtained through publicprivate partnerships (PPPs),
has a state-of-the-art level 2 greenhouse and laboratories
equipped with modern facilities to handle GMO development
and evaluation. In Uganda, the government in partnership with
other donors since 2000 has spearheaded the development of
biotechnology infrastructure (greenhouses, laboratories) and
human capacity in molecular biology and GMO transformation
techniques in the Uganda National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) [38]. These twin capabilities have enabled NARO
to take a lead in the development and field-testing of many
transgenic events involving different staple crops as shown in
Table 3.

Public awareness for informed decision-making

The cynicism surrounding GMOs in some western European
countries has negatively influenced GM debates in Africa and
reinforced the need for a transparent process of engaging the
public in decision-making. The first adopters of biotech in the
continent also lead the way in formalizing strategies to promote
public awareness, education and participation. For example, the
South African Agency of Science and Technology Advancement
launched the program for Public Understanding of Biotechnology
(PUB) in early 2003, targeting all segments of society, but with
special focus on consumers, educators and learners [39]. The PUB
program aims to promote public awareness and understanding of
modern biotechnology and to stimulate dialogue on its current
and potential future applications. In 2008, Kenya implemented a
national biotechnology awareness strategy (BioAWARE-Kenya), a
six-year (20082013) strategy meant to enhance public understanding and awareness through the dissemination of accurate,
www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt

127

Review

GM crops in commercial production and field trial stages in Africa

REVIEW

Review

timely and balanced information to catalyze informed decisionmaking [40]. A partial impetus was the baseline survey done in
2002, which indicated that only 12.7% of farmer-respondents in
Kenya were aware of biotechnology [41]. Burkina Faso enhanced
awareness in 2010 by translating the biosafety law into the three
languages (Moore, Jula and Gulmacema) most commonly spoken
by cotton growers [19]. These national efforts are strengthened by
platforms initiated by pro-biotech non-governmental organizations
(NGOs). One such platform is the Open Forum on Agricultural
Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB), now operational in Kenya, Uganda,
Tanzania, Nigeria and Ghana. The OFAB enables interactions
between and among scientists, journalists, the civil society, industrialists, policy makers, and farmer groups and consumer associations, which explore avenues of bringing the benefits of
biotechnology to the grassroots level (http://www.ofabafrica.org).

Capacity to handle approval processes

Scientific and technical capacity to conduct risk assessment and
evaluating scientific data of GMOs has been limited in Africa [20].
The first adopter nations initially involved expertise outside the
government to perform these functions. However, after years of
handling GMO applications, these nations have appreciable level
of expertise for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making as
evidenced by the number of GMOs approved for commercialization and/or CFTs (Table 3). Details how South Africa, Egypt, Kenya
and Uganda have gained such experiences are herein following.

New Biotechnology  Volume 30, Number 2  January 2013

conducted a series of internships, consultations and workshops

to bolster public awareness. A bio-containment greenhouse facility
was built and biosafety guidelines for laboratory, greenhouse and
field experiments were completed in 1995, paving the way for
three ministerial decrees that gave the momentum for biotech
R&D and commercialization. Under this regulatory framework,
Egypt commercialized IR maize in 2008 and has field-tested
numerous crops as shown in Table 3.

Kenya
Before the implementation of Biosafety Act of 2009, which established the National Biosafety Authority (NBA), Kenya regulated
GMOs using the Science and Technology Act of 1980. This act
established the National Biosafety Committee (NBC), a decisionmaking organ that approves GM applications and coordinated by
the National Council of Science and Technology (NCST) [43]. In
2000, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) planted the
first CFT of transgenic sweet potato that is resistant to sweet potato
feathery mottle virus (SPFMV) after nearly three years of stringent
approval process [44]. This process moved Kenya along a learning
curve to enable a more rapid pace in handling subsequent applications. Since then CFTs have been conducted with IR maize, IR
cotton, transgenic drought tolerant (DT) maize and bio-fortified
sorghum. The inaugural commercialization of IR cotton is scheduled for 2014 [45].

Uganda
South Africa
South Africa perhaps represents one of the most successful cases of
agricultural biotechnology transfer in the world. Its regulatory
framework is most well-developed in the continent. Before the
implementation of the GMO act (Act No. 15 of 1997) in December
1999, the South African Committee for Genetic Experimentation
(SAGENE) was established to advise the government, industry and
the public on safety issues [42]. The GMO Act of 1997 is administered through the Directorate for Genetic Resources Management.
It provides for a Registrar who issues the approval, two regulatory
bodies (the Advisory Committee and the Executive Council) and a
battery of inspectors. South Africa has commercialized several
transgenic crops that include six cotton events, of which two
are herbicide tolerant, two are insect resistant and two are stacked
events, three maize events (two insect resistant, one herbicide
tolerant and one stacked event) as well as a single herbicide
tolerant soybean event (G.M. Marx, Monitoring of genetically
modified food products in South Africa. PhD Dissertation. Department of Haematology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of
the Free State, 2010; http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/
available/etd-10042011-094627/unrestricted/MarxGM.pdf
(accessed 15 May 2012)).

GM activities in Uganda are regulated under existing legislation by

the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology
(UNCST), which hosts the secretariat of the National Biosafety
Committee (NBC). The NBC is the technical arm of UNCST and is
responsible for scrutinizing and approving GM applications [46].
In 2005, the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)
in collaboration with other partners launched a project to genetically engineer East African highland bananas (Musa spp.) resistant
to black sigatoka and nematode. The approval process lasted
nearly two years, culminating with the first CFT in 2007 [47]. This
exercise was a significant capacity building for NARO, in that five
more transgenic events involving four crops (two of banana, one of
cassava, one stacked event of cotton and one of maize) have since
undergone CFTs.

Challenges
Although first adopter nations have warmed up to GM technology,
a few hurdles remain. These include inadequate public investment
in biotech R&D, the impediments from a conservative view of the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, socio-economic concerns, mandatory GMO labeling policies and provisions for public participation in the approval process.

Egypt

Inadequate public investment in biotech R&D

Egypts efforts to address environmental responsibility for products of biotechnology began in 1992 with the collaborative work
between the Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute
(AGERI) and the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project
(ABSP), based at Michigan State University with support
from the US Agency for International Development (USAID)
[26]. During the period 199399, the ABSP-AGERI project

Leading African biotech countries have funded the establishment

of centers of excellence in existing or new institutions to bring
together multidisciplinary research teams in coordinated biotech
R&D with the goal of commercialization but so far the investment
has proven inadequate. These institutions (national agricultural
research institutes, science councils and life sciences faculties of
the major universities) have laboratories and greenhouses

128

www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt

equipped with modern state-of-the-art facilities that can support

large-scale commercialization of biotech products. Although, public funding to realize this goal has been limited, these investments
by the pioneering countries for biotechnology do represent a
strategic investment in biotechnology R&D. For example, South
Africa, a leader in Africa in biotechnology research, had total
business expenditure on biotechnology in 2005/6 of US$ 53.5
million [30]. Egypts National Strategy for Genetic Engineering
and Biotechnology only approved about US$ 4 million for biotech
R&D in 2003 [48]. Although rather old, data available for Kenya as
of 1996, indicate a meager US$1.18 million government spending
on all forms of agricultural biotechnology research [49]. Unfortunately, no comparable data are available for Burkina Faso, Nigeria
and Uganda. These countries have created an enabling regulatory
framework that has acted as a catalyst for attracting a range of
financial support from international organizations and private
foundations for publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) in biotech
R&D programs. In that way, government resources have largely
been spent in training scientists and strengthening the plant
breeding and testing programs necessary to integrate the GM traits
into popular locally adapted farmer-preferred varieties.

Cartagena protocol on biosafety

Adhering to internationally binding agreements is useful, but may
be an obstacle to science-based decision-making. The Cartagena
Protocols precautionary principle of articles 10, 11 and 26 have
lead some nations to put more emphasis on the potential risks of
GMOs to biological diversity, human health and socio-economic
status of the indigenous and local communities, even if there is no
scientific certainty to that effect. The politics surrounding the way
these provisions are interpreted and implemented has significant
repercussions regarding research and commercialization of genetically engineered indigenous crops/landraces, which form the bulk
of rural staples in Africa. Paarlberg argued groups opposed to the
technology used the Cartagena Protocol as a vehicle to persuade
governments in Africa to set in place European-style domestic
regulatory systems regarding the approval of GMOs [50]. These
groups worry about the possible loss of native crop varieties that
may reduce the flexibility and resilience of farming systems, and
increase communities vulnerability to famine [51]. The way in
which this concern is addressed significantly effects opportunities
for GM crop development in Africa.

Socio-economic concerns
In line with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafetys Article 26, the
GMO acts of Kenya and Nigeria and the GMO draft Bill of Uganda
emphasize the need, before application approval, for determining
socio-economic impacts arising from GMOs on the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity, as regard to indigenous
and local communities. But it is not well elaborated in these acts
how socio-economic impacts will be measured and analyzed, and
factored into biosafety decision-making process [52].

Mandatory labeling of GMOs

Currently there is controversy surrounding mandatory labeling of
GMOs. A central argument for labeling is that it enables consumer

REVIEW

choice in consuming or avoiding GMOs, whereas a primary

argument against labeling is that there are no proven health
risks with GM foods and labeling would seem to imply reason
for concern. Even at the international level there is disagreement on this issue, where no guidelines have been developed as
yet regarding mandatory labeling of GMOs. In May 2011, the
international Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) discontinued its work to define the terms and rules regarding the
labeling of foods derived from biotechnology due to lack of
consensus [53]. The GMO acts of Kenya and Nigeria and the
Biosafety Bill of Uganda have provisions for mandatory labeling.
South Africa, by contrast, does not require the labeling of GM
products except when these products are substantially different
in nutritional profiles from their conventional counterparts.
Mandatory labeling may be problematic in African countries
where most consumers understanding of the nature of GM
foods, the debate surrounding them and the alleged risks associated with their use remain nebulous and contentious [54]. In
addition to limited consumer understanding, another challenge
is the prominence of open markets and informal trade in many
African economies. Policy makers and regulators have not
taken these into consideration when developing regulations
on labeling.

Provisions for public participation in approval process

The GMO acts of the first adopter nations have provisions
intended to promote public awareness, education and participation in decision-making. South Africa invites public comments
before the Executive Council can evaluate and decide on an
application. But it is unclear how other countries plan to involve
the public in decisions about the course of action to take regarding
GMOs. Soliciting public opinion in open dialogues can be expensive and complex. Experts also question the validity of this
exercise in places where people do not have access to unbiased
and comprehensive information on the nature and consequences
of GMOs.

Conclusions
Africa has been slow to embrace the GM technology. Greater
government support, stronger legislative and regulatory frameworks, greater capacity to handle the approval process, more
responsive national biotech strategies and greater public awareness all bode for a wider adoption of GM technology in Africa.
Recently, first adopters have shown these qualities to move forward with strategies and implementation which support the
development and commercialization of GM crops. Progress made
by first adopter nations is likely to provide a roadmap for eventual
wider adoption of GMOs in Africa. This would need increased
collaboration of African countries on biosafety and regulation of
GMOs.

Acknowledgement
James A Okeno would like to acknowledge the support of the
visiting scientist program at the Biosafety Institute for
Genetically Modified Agricultural Products (BIGMAP), Iowa
State University.

www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt

129

Review

New Biotechnology  Volume 30, Number 2  January 2013

REVIEW

New Biotechnology  Volume 30, Number 2  January 2013

References

Review

1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (2010) The State of Food
Insecurity in the World. Report for 2010. FAO, Rome
2 Nkonya, E. et al. (2008) Linkages between Land Management, Land Degradation, and
Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Uganda (IFPRI Research Report No. 159).
IFPRI, Washington, DC.
3 Thirtle, C. et al. (2001) Relationship between Changes in Agricultural Productivity and
the Incidence of Poverty in Developing Countries. Report Commissioned by DFID.
Department for International Development, London, UK
4 International Fund for Agricultural Development of the United Nations, (2011)
Rural Poverty Report 2011: New Realities, New Challenges: New Opportunities for
Tomorrows Generation. IFAD, Rome
5 Juma, C. (2011) Science meets farming in Africa. Science 334, 1323
6 Food, Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (2009) Food Production
Statistics of 2009. FAO/STAT, Rome
7 Conway, G. and Toenniessen, G. (2003) Science for African food security. Science
299, 11871188
8 Juma, C. and Serageldin, I. (2007) Freedom to Innovate: Biotechnology in Africas
Development. A Report of the High-Level African Panel on Modern Biotechnology. Africa
Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD). DS Print
Media, Johannesburg
9 Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), (2011) Status of Biotechnology and
Biosafety in Sub-Saharan Africa: A FARA 2009 Study Report. FARA Secretariat, Accra,
Ghana
10 Mugabe, J. (2003) Biotechnology and Sustainable Development in Africa Towards
Regional Consensus and Common Strategy. http://www.nepadst.org/doclibrary/
pdfs/doc08_112003b.pdf (accessed 12 December 2011)
11 Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. (2011) GM Crops: Global Socio-Economic and
Environmental Impacts 19962009. PG Economics Ltd., UK
12 Cabanilla, L.S. et al. (2004) Economic cost of non-adoption of Bt-cotton in West
Africa: with special reference to Mali. Int. J. Biotechnol. 10, 116
13 Gbegbelegbe, S.D. et al. (2007) Ex ante Economic Impact of Genetically Modified (GM)
Cowpea in Benin. Paper presented in American Agric. Ass. Annual Meeting,
Portland, OR, USA.
14 Horna, D., et al. (2008) Insecticide Use on Vegetables in Ghana: Would GMO Seed
Benefit Farmers? IFPRI Discussion Paper 00785, IFPRI, Washington, DC.
15 Kikulwe, E., et al. (2008) Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda: Social
Benefits, Costs, and Consumer Perceptions. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00767, IFPRI,
Washington, DC.
16 James, C. (2010) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. ISAAA Brief No. 42.
17 James, C. (2008) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. ISAAA Brief No. 39.
18 James, C. (2009) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. ISAAA Brief No. 41.
19 Adenle, A.A. (2011) Adoption of commercial biotech crops in Africa. 2nd
International Conference on Biotechnology and Food Science. IPCBEE 2011, vol 7 pp.
176180, IACSIT Press, Singapore
20 Cohen, J.I. (2005) Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nat.
Biotechnol. 23, 2733
21 Eicher, C.K. et al. (2006) Crop biotechnology and the African farmer. Food Policy
31, 504527
22 Makinde, D. et al. (2009) Status of biotechnology in Africa: challenges and
opportunities. Asian Biotechnol. Dev. Rev. 11, 110
23 Potrykus, I. (2010) Lessons from the Humanitarian Golden Rice project:
regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop
products. New Biotechnol. 27, 466472
24 Paarlberg, R. (2010) GMO foods and crops: Africas choice. New Biotechnol. 27, 609613
25 Berg, P. et al. (1975) Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on
recombinant DNA molecules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 72, 19811984
26 Madkour, M.A., et al. (2000) Analysis of a National Biosafety System: Regulatory
Policies and Procedures in Egypt. International Service for National Agricultural
Research (ISNAR), The Hague. Country Report No. 62.
27 Cooke, J.G. and Downie, R. (2010) African Perspectives on Genetically Modified Crops:
Assessing the Debate in Zambia, Kenya and South Africa. A Report of the Center for
Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) Project. http://csis.org/files/publication/
100701_Cooke_AfricaGMOs_WEB.pdf (accessed 12 December 2011)
28 Nangayo, F. (2006) The Status of Regulations for Genetically Modified Crops in
Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.aatf-africa.org/userfiles/StatusRegulations-GM-Crops_Africa.pdf (accessed 12 December 2011)
29 Department of Science and Technology, (2001) A National Biotechnology Strategy
for South Africa. http://www.esastap.org.za/download/
sa_biotechstrat_jun2001.pdf (accessed 9 January 2012)
30 Gastrow, M. (2008) Great expectations: the state of biotechnology research and
development in South Africa. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 7, 342348

130

www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt

31 Government of Kenya (GoK), (2006) A National Biotechnology Development Policy

2006. Government Printer, Nairobi
32 Karembu, M., et al. (2009) Biotech Crops in Africa: The Final Frontier. ISAAA
AfriCenter, Brief No. 39.
33 Kumwenda, O. (2011) Analysis: more Africa countries seen growing GM crops.
Reuters Africa 14. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/us-africa-gmoidUSTRE72U2QA20110331 (accessed 9 January 2012)
34 IRIN News, (2004) West Africa Leaders Give Cautious Thumbs Up To Biotech. http://
www.irinnews.org/Report/50366/BURKINA-FASO (accessed 9 January 2012)
35 Biotech Info.net, (2000) International Policy: Letter from Kenyas President Moi to U.S.
President Bill Clinton. http://www.biotech-info.net/Moi.html (accessed 12 December
2011)
36 Poland, D. (2004) President Kibaki opens IRMA biosafety greenhouse. IRMA
Updates 5, 12. http://apps.cimmyt.org/english/wpp/gen_res/pdf/IRMA_51&4.pdf
(accessed 9 January 2012)
37 Kingiri, A.N. (2012) The Bumpy Path Towards Knowledge Convergence for Pro-Poor
Agro-Biotechnology Regulation and Development: Exploring Kenyas Regulatory Process,
Biotechnology Molecular Studies and Novel Applications for Improved Quality of
Human Life (Sammour, R.H., ed.), 978-953-51-0151-2 http://www.intechopen.
com/books/biotechnology-molecular-studies-and-novel-applications-forimproved-quality-of-human-life/the-bumpy-path-towards-knowledgeconvergence-for-pro-poor-agro-biotechnology-regulation-and-developm
(accessed August 28, 2012)
38 Tushemereiwe, W. (2012) Banana Improvement Project in Uganda: Supporting
Agricultural Research Through Feed the Future and Strong Mission Involvement. ABSPII
and Product-Driven Capacity Building for Emerging Markets; June 5, Washington, DC.
http://agrilinks.kdid.org/sites/agrilinks/files/resource/files/Tushemereiwe%
20June%205%202012% 20ABSPII%20Special%20Event.pdf?file=http://
agrilinks.kdid.org/sites/agrilinks/files/resource/files/Tushemereiwe%
20June%205%202012%20ABSPII%20Special%20Event.pdf&nid=1004 (accessed
August 29, 2012).
39 Gouse, M. (2007) South Africa: revealing the potential and obstacles, the private sector
model and reaching the traditional sector. In The Gene Revolution: GM Crops and
Unequal Development (Fukuda-Parr, S., ed.),pp. 177195, Earthscan, Bath Press, Bath,
UK
40 ISAAA CropBiotech Update, (2008) Kenya Launches National Biotechnology
Awareness Strategy. In: http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/
default.asp?ID=3215 (accessed 14 May 2012)
41 Kimenju, S.C. et al. (2011) Farmers, consumers and gatekeepers and their attitudes
towards biotechnology. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10, 47674776
42 Aerni, P. (2002) Public Attitudes Towards Agricultural Biotechnology in South Africa.
In: https://edit.ethz.ch/afee/people/Associated/aernip/Publications/SAreportsouth-Africa.pdf (accessed 14 May 2012)
43 Traynor, P. and Macharia, H.K. (2003) Analysis of the Biosafety System for
Biotechnology in Kenya: Application for a Conceptual Framework. International Service
for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague. Country Report No. 6.
44 Odame, H. et al. (2001) The Role of Innovation in Policy and Institutional Change: The
Case of Transgenic Sweetpotato in Kenya. In: http://www.ielrc.org/content/
n0206.htm (accessed 9 January 2012)
45 Njoroge, R. and Musyoka, D. (2011) Biotech cotton to be commercialized in Kenya
by end of 2014. Xinhua News Agency In: http://www.wfsj.org/mesha/?d=255
(accessed 16 May 2012)
46 Wafula, D. and Clark, N. (2005) Science and governance of modern biotechnology
in Sub-Saharan Africa the case study of Uganda. J. Int. Dev. 17, 679695
47 Shotkoski, F.A. et al. (2010) Role of biotechnology and transgenics in bananas
(Musa spp.) in Africa. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 879, 275279
48 Abdelgafar, B. et al. (2004) The emergence of health biotechnology in Egypt from
generics. Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 2530
49 Paarlberg, R.L. (2000) Governing the GM Crop Revolution Policy Choices for Developing
Countries. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC
50 Meldolesi, A. (2011) Vatican panel backs GMOs. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 11
51 Virgin, I. et al. (2007) Agricultural Biotechnology and Small-Scale Farmers in Eastern
and Southern Africa. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) In: http://www.seiinternational.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Risk-livelihoods/
agricultural_biotech_smallscale_east_south_africa.pdf (accessed 16 May 2012)
52 Jaffe, G. (2006) Comparative Analysis of the National Biosafety Regulatory Systems in
East Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00146, IFPRI, Washington, DC.
53 Miller, H.I. and Kershen, D.L. (2011) A label we dont need. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 971
972
54 Kushwaha, S. et al. (2008) Consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM)
cowpeas in Sub-Sahara Africa. J. Int. Food Agribusiness Market. 20, 723