It is estimated that the application of genome editing technologies could shorten variety development to two to three years.
Kenya is a net importer of food, with large swathes of land deemed to be too arid while climate change is resulting in erratic and harsher conditions for productive agricultural activities.
Gene editing techniques can be considered an evolution of conventional plant breeding techniques and GM technology.
Last month the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) published guidelines for the regulation of genome editing technology, making Kenya the second nation in Africa after Nigeria to do so.
This is a relatively new cutting-edge technique that is applied to compliment traditional breeding techniques to find solutions to our global food security challenges that have been compounded by climate change.
Innovative plant breeding technologies, including genetic modification (GM), have contributed to higher-yielding varieties with the ability to resist pests and tolerate stresses like drought as well as improved nutrition, enabling us to increase food production without necessarily increasing land acreage.
It is estimated that the application of genome editing technologies could shorten variety development to two to three years, but also afford us the opportunity to improve existing local and regional crop varieties. Development times of 12–15 years are typical for conventional breeding techniques.
Kenya is a net importer of food, with large swathes of land deemed to be too arid while climate change is resulting in erratic and harsher conditions for productive agricultural activities.
It, therefore, seems intuitive that any technology that would sustainably transform unproductive areas to productive or enhance the productivity of existing arable land should be embraced.
The contradiction of the current situation in the country is that although the government recognises the role innovation and technology can play in unlocking our full potential in agriculture, as demonstrated by its adoption of progressive regulations, it is hamstrung by some of its own policies that hinder utilisation of these same technologies.
Case in point is the ban on importation of genetically modified (GM) food and feed products since 2012 whilst advancing regulatory processes to now be able to regulate genome editing techniques.
The government should be commended for building the capacity of the NBA since 2009 when it was established as a risk assessor and risk manager of modern biotechnology in agriculture.
What is required now is the political will to back up the vision that led to the establishment of the NBA and its supporting agencies, and fully empower them to deliver on their mandate.
Gene editing techniques can be considered an evolution of conventional plant breeding techniques and GM technology.
As the name gene editing suggests, specific gene(s) conferring certain characteristics to the plant or animal may be targeted and “edited” to either slow down its effect, enhance its effect, or eliminate its effect.
In conventional breeding the genetic changes are random and non-specific while with GM technology genetic changes involve the insertion of gene(s) from the donor organism to the host organism.
The current negative perceptions about GM technology partly emanate from the fear that the insertion of foreign gene(s) to an organism may result in negative effects to the environment or health of humans and animals.
Thankfully, this has not been the case. The question now arises; do you regulate a genome-edited organism as a GM or conventionally bred organism?
The genome-editing regulations published by NBA aim to guide whether the genome-edited products will be regulated as GM or as conventional breeds.
According to these regulations, genome editing and derived products that will not be regulated under the Biosafety Act (as GM) include modifications made by inserting genes from sexually compatible species and deletions/knockouts without the foreign genetic material in the end product.
Different approaches
World over different regulatory agencies have adopted differing approaches in regulating genome edited material. The approach that Kenya has adopted is consistent with most other jurisdictions.
Argentina was the first country to publish genome editing regulations in 2015 that stipulate that as long as no foreign genetic material is present in the commercialised variety, the new variety will be regulated as equivalent to conventional non-GM crop varieties.
This is the same approach that the USA and Canada and other Latin American countries, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Honduras and Guatemala, have adopted.
Australia and Japan have also aligned their regulations with this thinking. China and the Philippines have recently amended their laws to shorten the approval times usually required for the GM products.
Precautionary approach
The United Kingdom’s parliament has also recently passed a law to help researchers carry out trials of gene-edited crops in England. India on the other hand seems to have adopted a precautionary approach similar to South Africa.
Our local scientists in collaboration with their international counterparts have made strides in applying emerging biotechnologies and the NBA is striving to keep up with technology advancements and ensure safe application.
Genome editing is yet another weapon in the biotechnology armoury that Kenya has positioned itself to utilize. What we now need is the political will to truly embrace innovation and technology to provide solutions to the food security situation and our other societal challenges.
Dr Liavoga is a researcher and food safety expert. email: [email protected]
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
