Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 243127,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/243127/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 211,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Dr. Rutto",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 323,
        "legal_name": "Sammy Kipkemoi Rutto",
        "slug": "sammy-rutto"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to join the chorus of opposition to this Motion. While looking at the Motion directly, I would like to say that the Motion talks about things that are not true. First of all, not all Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have been banned. Those that have been banned are few. So, it is not true that most developed countries have banned GMOs. Secondly, not all GMOs are dangerous to human beings and to the environment. Some are, in fact, supportive to human life and environment. The Motion does not reflect the truth about nature and science. The Mover should have revised this Motion in the light of those aspects. Thirdly, in cases where GMOs have been noted to be dangerous, precautions have been put in place. The Motion also talks about lack of policy. Where there is lack of policy and guidelines, you do not ban a product. You improve on the policy, guidelines and precautions. The Motion is misguided from the start and we need to oppose it just on the basis of those four points. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was a student of science and I have also taught science in my background. While reading the Motion, I cannot help feeling that this Motion is anti- science. This is because it portrays scientists as ignorant of the dangers of their activities. One of the things that scientists are conscious about while carrying out experiments are the precautions and potential dangers that their activities may cause. The Mover of the Motion wants to portray scientists as ignorant of those facts. That is not true. There are many other reasons why I am opposing this Motion: One, there is need to develop food varieties in various places that are disease resistant. One of the ways of improving the yields of such crops is to modify their genetic components so that such a crop may be resistant. I would urge the Mover of the Motion to visit our universities and see how our scientists are July 12, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2007 struggling to develop crops that are disease resistant, so that we can improve our food security and production, to enhance our capacity to deal with hunger. Secondly, there is need to develop certain crops for the sake of adaptability to certain climates. I advise the Mover of the Motion to visit Egerton University where they are developing a breed of rice that will be used in North Eastern Province. This breed of rice is drought-resistant. Such a development is more positive than banning this science. Thirdly, if you go to places like Makueni and Kwale districts, you will note that people are suffering because of lack of food. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, as a nation, we should support science in order to produce more food to serve the communities that live in dry areas. Banning biotechnology as this Motion suggests will be a mistake for this country. I join the hon. Members who have opposed this Motion. With these remarks, I oppose the Motion."
}