Search

Gene technologies, such as transgenesis and new breeding techniques (NBTs), expand the toolbox for plant breeding. Many countries in Africa, however, have long been seen as "slow adopters" of gene technologies for several reasons, one being the lack of, or overly restrictive, biosafety regulatory frameworks. This is sometimes attributed to the influence of the precautionary-oriented EU biosafety policies. This study analyses and compares the biosafety regulatory frameworks and their implementation in Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda, and in the EU member state Sweden. The focus is on (1) the structure of the biosafety regulatory frameworks including the scope of the legislation, (2) the duration and cost of regulatory authorization for field trials with genetically modified (GM) plants, and (3) the regulatory approach to NBT products, i.e. to what extent NBT products are subject to the provisions of the biosafety regulatory framework. The data was collected through studying relevant legal and policy documents as well as interviewing regulatory officers and researchers in the respective countries. We found that the regulatory procedures in the selected countries are relatively straightforward, while the costs and duration may present a challenge. The regulatory approach to NBT products differ between the selected African countries and Sweden, the latter which follows EU regulations. The results are discussed in terms of the impact the regulatory developments in these four jurisdictions may have on international R&D collaborations involving the use of gene technologies and we also weigh the results against the common conception that Europe exerts a heavy influence on African countries in this technology field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Synthetic biology (SynBio) is an interdisciplinary field that has developed rapidly in the last two decades. It involves the design and construction of new biological systems and processes from standardized biological components, networks and synthetic pathways. The goal of Synbio is to create logical forms of cellular control. Biological systems and their parts can be redesigned to carry out completely new functions. SynBio is poised to greatly impact human health, the environment, biofuels and chemical production with huge economic benefits. SynBio presents opportunities for the highly agro-based African economies to overcome setbacks that threaten food security: The setbacks are brought about by climate change, land degradation, over-reliance on food imports, global competition, and water and energy security issues among others. With appropriate regulatory frameworks and systems in place, the benefits of harnessing SynBio to boost development in African economies by far potentially outweigh the risks. Countries that are already using GMOs such as South Africa and Kenya should find the application of SynBio seamless, as it would be a matter of expanding the already existing regulations and policies for GMO use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contributes to the debate about how regulatory science for agricultural technologies can be 'opened up' for a more diverse set of concerns and knowledges. The article focuses on the regulation of 'socio-economic considerations' for genetically modified organisms. While numerous countries have declared their intent to include these considerations in biotechnology decision-making, it is currently unclear both what counts as a socio-economic consideration and how such considerations should be assessed. This article provides greater clarity about how socio-economic considerations can be included in regulations by drawing upon the experience of two countries whose efforts in this field are particularly advanced: Kenya and South Africa. Based on extensive fieldwork, this article identifies the contours of an emerging regulatory regime by presenting two practice-based models for including socio-economic considerations in biotechnology decision-making. Whereas Kenya has taken a bottom-up process prior to assessing the first technologies and strongly emphasises scientific expertise, South Africa has instead established regulatory standards in an ad hoc fashion on a case-to-case basis, with a less prominent role for scientific evidence. The discussion of the distinct characteristics and tensions of both models provides insight into two potential pathways for including socio-economic considerations in the regulation of agricultural technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]