HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 201678,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/201678/?format=api",
"text_counter": 138,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Prof. Anyang'-Nyong'o",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 193,
"legal_name": "Peter Anyang' Nyong'o",
"slug": "peter-nyongo"
},
"content": "Thank you, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir. I would like to October 3, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 4325 support this Bill, but with qualifications. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am one of those rather conservative people who fear genetically modified organisms (GMOs). When I was in high school, I was taught biology. I was taught that, somehow, if you do not believe in the theory of creation and believe in the theory of evolution, you will have some kindred to tadpoles. Somehow, human beings can trace their relationship to some tiny animals called tadpoles. That really frightened me. It made me believe further that we have evolved, if, indeed, we believe in the theory of evolution, from some very minute organisms, until we have reached where we are today, as sophisticated animals. Now, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I read Section 4 of this Bill, which is about the objects of this Act, they are listed as four. I want to read that out because it is the bottom of my fear. I need to be reassured. I have listened to the hon. Member who has just spoken before me--- He is in the relevant Departmental Committee. He has sought to reassure us that they have visited many countries, seen that technology in action and are convinced that it is good for this country. I also happen to have been to a laboratory in Cuba, where GMO research is done. I did not see it in action. At the level of scientific proof, it looks very convincing. But at the level of understanding what it might do to us in the long run, if we eat genetically modified foods--- Not being quite clear what they might do in the long run to the human body or to the history of evolution of human beings, is frightening! Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I read Section 4, the objects of this Act are:- \"(a) to facilitate responsible research into and minimise the risks of harm that may be posed by genetically modified organisms;\" It means that even the Committee understands that there are risks that may be posed by GMOs. Unfortunately, in the Bill, some of those risks are not stated. But, of course, that is why the Authority is being established. \"(b) to ensure an adequate level of protection for the safe transfer, handling and use of genetically modified organisms that may have an adverse effect on the health of the people and the environment.\" Again, you see, in the second object of this Act, we are taking precautions. The first precaution is the risk of harm that may be posed by such organisms. The second precaution is the protection for the safe transfer, handling and use of genetically modified organisms that may have an adverse effect on the health of the people and the environment. Thirdly, it reads:- \"(c) to establish a transparent and predictable process of reviewing and making decisions of the transfer, handling and use of genetically modified organisms and related activities.\" In other words, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, they are establishing that Authority because of my fear. My fear is inscribed in these two objectives of the Act. They pose danger and they are risky. How are we, then, intending to protect ourselves against that fear? We are establishing an Authority, which shall be managed by a Board. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, again, my fear is here. When I look at the membership of the Board it, comprises nine bureaucrats and six scientists. I am not sure whether my fear is going be allayed by a Board like this. Having been a Government Minister and knowing how these boards function and who attends them and whose word is carried; I am worried that the fears expressed in Clause 4 of this Bill and the precaution we are taking in Clause 6 by establishing a Board largely dominated by bureaucrats, does not allay my fears. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me read the members of the Board: (i) A chairperson who shall be an eminent scientist appointed by the Minister. That is fine, he or she can be an eminent scientist retired or whatever. If it is under the 4326 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES October 3, 2007 present Government, we will likely to get a retired scientist who may no longer be practising in the laboratory and may not be up to date with the latest readings and research in biotechnology. (ii) The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry for the time being responsible for science and technology. This is a bureaucrat and not necessarily a scientist. (iii) The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry for the time being responsible for finance. This is another bureaucrat, most likely an accountant, an economist for that matter or he or she could be anybody because there is no order that the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Finance must be a financial person or an economist. We have known times when the Permanent Secretary the Ministry of Finance was a historian. I am not saying that historians do not know economics. (iv) The Director-General of the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). Again, there is no guarantee that he or she is a scientist. (v) The Managing Director of the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS). (vi) The Managing Director of the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS). Most likely, this would be a scientist, but there is no guarantee. (vii) The Director of the Department of Veterinary Services or his representative nominated in writing. (viii) The National Council for Science and Technology. (ix) The Chief Public Health Officer. (x) Director of Agriculture. (xi) Five other persons appointed by the Minister of whom three shall be experts in the following respective sciences, namely; biological, environmental and social sciences. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the only guarantee we have in this Act are these two scientists; biological and environmental. These are the two people we are sure will most likely have something very close to the science we are dealing with; that is biotechnology. I am quite sure that these are some of the amendments that the committee will bring before the House. If, indeed, our fears in the objects of this Act are to be allayed, then the composition of the Board should have enough numbers of people who will have the most up-to-date skills and knowledge to make sure that the Board does its work. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, biotechnology is a fast-growing field. The research in biotechnology takes place on an hourly basis. Something discovered at 12.00 o'clock today, may make a big difference to application of Genetically Modified Organisms at 4.00 p.m. in the afternoon. In these days of the internet communication, if you are a practising scientist, you will most likely have that posted on your website or e-mail and be up to date. But, if you are a mere bureaucrat in the Government of Kenya, it would be very unlikely that you would know it. If you are a bureaucrat in Rwanda, it may be different because Rwanda is much more up to date in ICT than we are. Like I heard a radio announcer say this morning in some of these talk shows that, \"In Kenya, it is most likely that ourselves and Government officials, could easily confuse a computer for a piano\". So, the extent to which we can be up to date in terms of ICT, as bureaucrats going to this Board, is quite questionable. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, my major contribution in this Bill is that if, indeed, we will allay our fears as put in Clause 4 of this Bill, then the composition of the Board must be reviewed. This is not an ordinary authority we are establishing. We are establishing an authority that will be at the cutting edge of scientific development in an areas in which the use of the GMO is extremely risky as the Bill itself says. So, we must take exceptional precaution in the kind of authority we are establishing. We should not do it like any other authority that has been established in this country which must be dominated by bureaucrats. The issues we are dealing with are very different. October 3, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 4327 Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I go further on Clause 7 - Objects and Functions of the Authority; \"The objects and purpose for which the authority is established is to exercise general supervision and control of the transfer, handling and use of Genetically Modified Organisms\". It says, \"general supervision and control\". That may explain why, when the Authority was being established, the membership was done this way. It was not expected to be a specialised Board. It as going to carry out a \"general supervision and control\". My question is: Who then will do a particular supervision and control in this area? If this is the first Authority that we are establishing in this very sensitive area and we give the Board general control and supervision, then somewhere in the law, there must be somebody who is concerned for specifics in this area. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the devil is always in the detail in an area like this. I have said, having gone this Bill, it is rather good on generalities and very poor in details. As the hon. Member said, even when they went around to other places like South Africa and so on, this is an area in which we cannot afford to be too general. We are dealing with human lives. Any mistake done in the research and application of GMOs can lead to the wiping out of the whole of the human race. We have not yet solved the mystery behind HIV/AIDS pandemic. How did the HIV/AIDs virus come into being? Did it come into being as a result of a research like this or a research in biological warfare? Indeed, biological warfare could have been based on research on genetically modified something! Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would rather the committee be very careful in establishing an Authority like this, that somewhere in the law, we are very particular about the details. Make sure that the fears we have expressed in Clause 4 of this Bill are taken care of; not in generalities as, indeed, is seen both in the membership of the Board as well as the objects and functions of the authority, but in a much more specific provision in the law. These generalities cover; one, safety of human health and two, provision of an adequate level of protection. My belief is that we are not just concerned in general about the safety of human health. We are also concerned about the safety of human reproduction. We exist today, as it said in the Bible in the book of Genesis, God told us to go multiply and fill the whole world. If we can get GMOs that are going to interfere with reproduction of the human race, then even if we are particular about our health, we are going nowhere. I would have said that one of the things that should be put here, given that we have had experience with HIV/AIDS is the safety of human health and reproduction. One of the fears in the Western World in particular is that some of the foods we eat these days, interfere with human reproduction. In the West, the population is going down, perhaps because of nutrition. There is authority today that in the next 20 years, Africa is going to be the only continent that can supply labour to the rest of the world. Also, Africa is going to be the only continent which is going to have the youngest population. In Japan, for example, today, they are closing nursery, primary and high schools because there no children to go there. Indeed, nursery and high schools are being turned into old age facilities. People are living longer in Japan than those who are being born. So, rather than use nursery and primary schools for the young, they are being used for old people's homes. That tendency is emerging in Germany as well. Now, it can be said that it is a result of birth control, but it is also as a result of the low level of human reproduction in this society. I am not quite sure that this low level of human reproduction is simply just as a result of birth control. It could easily be as a result of the kind of nutrition and food that these people are eating. Do we want to risk the reproduction of the human race in Africa by going blindly into using genetically-modified foods, when we know for certain that there are certain risks that are stated in this Bill? If we must go into genetically-modified foods because we think that, that is the only way to feed our population, then 4328 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES October 3, 2007 how are we taking care of this risk? I am not quite sure that this Bill gives us adequate ground for protecting ourselves against the risks mentioned in Clause 4. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me add that I do not believe that the way to feed people in Africa is through Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). I believe that we still have a wide latitude in improving the hybrid seeds without GMOs, through the kind of agricultural sciences and research that are extremely well-developed in Africa; for example, in Kenya and Nigeria. We have fantastic institutions which have been there for a long time with tremendous knowledge among Africans that can, if properly used, lead us to developing hybrid seeds naturally. If we use irrigation, we will become a bread-basket for the rest of the world in terms of normal and organic food. In any case, organic food is fetching much more money in Western markets today than ever before. Eggs that are laid naturally by runners or hens which run in the compound are extremely expensive in places like Europe. They are not like the ones laid by chicken from Kenchic. Why are we losing our comparative advantage in the world economy by rushing head- long to something that the West has developed because they are short of land, labour and everything and we think that, that is the solution to our problems, when we have not exhausted the natural pathways of reproducing ourselves? Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to submit that in as far as I appreciate the work that the Committee has done and the fact that we should be at the cutting edge of modern science and technology, I think we should be better prepared in embracing GMOs than we are in this Bill. I would request the Committee to look very carefully at Clauses 4, 6, 7 and 8 of this Bill, and convince us and itself that, first, realising the objects of this Bill, we have sufficient and adequate institutional capacity established in this Board that will prevent us from running head- long into these risks that may easily end us up using GMOs without due consideration of the reproduction of ourselves in the future. Thank you."
}