GMO Case: Challenging Kenya’s Lifting of the GMO Ban in East Africa

For over 10,000 years, peasants and smallholder farmers have freely saved, selected, exchanged, and sold seeds while using them to produce food and sustain livelihoods. These customary practices remain essential to the right to food and biodiversity, particularly for women in Africa. However, since the mid-1990s, the push for commercial seed systems and stronger intellectual property (IP) protections over plant varieties and biotechnology has undermined these rights, threatening food sovereignty, traditional practices, and peasant seed systems.

In East Africa, Kenya’s decision to lift its ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) exposes the entire region to corporate GMO expansion. Despite the government’s claim that GMOs enhance food security, research shows they create monopolies that economically exploit smallholder farmers. GMOs jeopardize the right to adequate seed and food by introducing adverse substances and eroding food sovereignty, cultural diversity, and community-based food systems.

The Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) filed a case before the East African Court of Justice against Kenya’s government, arguing that lifting the ban violates the Treaty Establishing the East African Community. The action contravenes principles of good governance and good neighborliness, which require participatory, accountable, and inclusive decision-making. Kenya failed to consult East African indigenous communities or neighboring states, disregarding regional consensus.

East Africa’s porous borders and the Common Market Protocol facilitate unrestricted movement of goods, including GMOs, across member states. This risks contaminating non-GMO fields in countries lacking regulatory frameworks. Open pollination, particularly in staple crops like maize, threatens indigenous seeds, risking irreversible genetic contamination. Maize, a dietary cornerstone consumed as ugali or posho, faces displacement by patented varieties, eroding cultural heritage tied to traditional seeds.

The fifth East African Development Strategy highlights agriculture’s critical role, employing 70% of the rural population and contributing 27% to the EAC’s GDP. Kenya’s unilateral decision undermines regional food security and biodiversity. GMOs enable corporate monopolies, forcing farmers to depend on transnational seed suppliers. Terminator genes—sterile seeds that cannot be replanted—further strip farmers of their right to save seeds, perpetuating royalty payments and IP control.

Article 21(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights prohibits foreign economic exploitation by monopolies, ensuring communities benefit from their resources. Kenya’s justification that GMOs combat food insecurity is unsupported; AgEcon research shows weak correlation between GMO adoption and food security. Brazil and the USA, leading biotech producers, saw minimal food security improvements compared to non-GMO-reliant nations.

In East Africa, food loss and waste contributes to 30% of cereals, 50% of roots and tubers, and 70% of fruits—demonstrate systemic inefficiencies. Increased production alone cannot address these gaps. The case awaits cause listing as it challenges Kenya’s breach of regional treaties and the threat GMOs pose to food sovereignty, cultural heritage, and farmers’ rights.