It is now possible for the world's GMO manufacturers - Monsanto, Syngenta, Novartis and DuPont being the largest - to patent and claim copyright on foodstuffs. The companies are well within their rights to ensure that any seeds they provide will produce sterile plants, or to force farmers to sign contracts agreeing not to keep back any seed for sowing the next season. In addition, there are specific recommended fertilisers and pesticides for the GMO crops, again produced by the seed suppliers. Farmers wanting to plant GMOs could find themselves "bioserfs" - at the mercy of their suppliers, prevented by contract from retaining a portion of their harvest for replanting the following season.

 Nevertheless, say the pro-GMO lobby, surely this is a price worth paying for food security? With famine a constant threat on the continent, surely farmers would be willing to enter into agreements with GMO manufacturers if they could then be sure of higher yields? Perhaps this would be true, were it not for the inconvenient fact that there are no studies that have shown the long-term effectiveness of GMOs. In fact, research has shown that GMOs are only effective against pests where infestation has been particularly high. In addition, pests have been found to develop tolerances against their intended treatments. In a nightmare scenario, GMOs could eventually lead to strains of super-pests that could not be treated with any pesticide.

 A further problem that has already been identified is one of unintended contamination. Recently, genes from GMO strains of maize have been found in non-GMO maize in Mexico, which raises the issue of biosecurity. Despite the claims of their manufacturers that GMOs pose no threat to other crops or indigenous plant species, it has now been shown that they can "jump," unbidden, from one crop to another. If GMOs are indeed more robust and hardy than their non-GMO counterparts, one imagines that it would only take a minor breach of any biosafety in measures for GMOs to be unwittingly released "into the wild " where their effect on existing plant life cannot be predicted.

 In addition, there are concerns about consumer choice. While in Europe, where there is strong anti-GMO sentiment, there are strict labelling laws where GMO products must be identified, so that consumers can actually make the choice as to whether or not they buy them. By contrast, Kenya has no such labelling laws, nor any regulations as to whether GMO produce will be identified as such, or segregated from non-GMO products. While farmers may have a choice over whether to plant GMO crops, the public at large, it appears, will not be given a choice over whether to eat them.

 The structure, remit and powers of the National Biosafety Authority have yet to be determined. At present, there is no way of knowing whether the regulations to be put in place will be strong enough to provide effective oversight of GMO agriculture. What is clear, regardless of the measures put in place, is that farmers will have to think long and hard about whether to proceed with any cultivation of GMOs, and entrusting future harvests to the whims of multinational chemical companies. The decisions they make could have very important ramifications for the country, both in terms of the price we pay for food now and for our future food security.

_____________