Regulatory challenges for GM crops in developing economies: the African experience

Abstract

Globally, transgenic or genetically modified (GM) crops are considered regulated products that are subject to regulatory oversight during trans-boundary movement, testing and environmental release. In Africa, regulations for transgenic crops are based on the outcomes of the historic Earth Summit Conference held in Rio, Brazil two decades ago, namely, the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the subsequent adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. To exploit the potential benefits of transgenic crops while safeguarding the potential risks on human health and environment, most African countries have signed and ratified the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Consequently, these countries are required to take appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to ensure that the handling and utilization of living modified organisms are undertaken in a manner that reduces the risks to humans and the environment. These countries are also expected to provide regulatory oversight on transgenic crops through functional national biosafety frameworks (NBFs). While in principle this approach is ideal, NBFs in most African countries are steeped in a host of policy, legal and operational challenges that appear to be at cross-purposes with the noble efforts of seeking to access, test and deliver promising GM crops for use by resource-limited farmers in Africa. In this paper we discuss the regulatory challenges faced during the development and commercialization of GM crops based on experiences from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Transgenic Pro-Vitamin A Biofortified Crops for Improving Vitamin A Deficiency and Their Challenges

“…Thus, governmental stance on GMOs predicts availability of GM crops at market. Genetic modification has been touted as precise, flexible and rapid compared to its alternatives under limited time and resources [65], yet there are persistent concerns about safety and trade aspects of GM products, which necessitate regulations [66]. In formulating national policies of GM products, countries weigh in opportunities and potential risks in social, political and economic contexts.…”

“…Regarding transgenic crop adoption, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are a political mosaic of national stance, from permissive, pre-cautionary to prohibitive [66,67]. Likewise, developmental stages of legislative infrastructure on GM crops vary from established, partially built to virtually non-existent [67].…”

“…In South Asia, for instance, Bhutan adopted a restrictive GMO-free strategy banning any introduction, release, or research of GMOs while India established federal and state agencies to regulate already commercialized GM crops [67]. In sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa among few others is a frontrunner of GM crop adoption and enacted GMO laws in 2000 while Angola prohibits GMOs with no enacted GMO laws [66,68]. Mabaya et al (2015) identified some key factors affecting GM crop policies in Africa [68], which might be applicable to South Asia.…”

Building an Alliance for Biotechnology in Africa

“…The biosafety frameworks required before any GM crops can be field tested and released have been slow to emerge in most African countries . Ghana's biosafety law, for instance, took a decade to successfully pass (Nang'ayo et al ), and Uganda has been working on its biosafety law since 2003 (Schnurr and Gore ). (As of this writing, it was stalled in the Parliamentary process.)…”

“…(As of this writing, it was stalled in the Parliamentary process.) Even in countries where a national regulatory system has been put in place, political controversy surrounds the release of GM crops (Bailey et al ; Nang'ayo et al ). According to an international organization that keeps track of GM crop approvals, only four African countries – Egypt, Burkina Faso, Sudan and South Africa – had approved any GM crops as of 2015 (ISAAA website, accessed 6 November 2015), although 11 countries are allowing some confined field trials to proceed (NEPAD/ABNE ).…”