The Government’s recent embrace of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has sparked intense debate on the balance between agricultural innovation and potential long-term risks to health and the environment. After years of deliberation and a previous ban, the approval of GMO projects signaled a transformative moment for Kenya's agriculture sector, promising enhanced food security and modernized farming practices.

The shift began in October 2022 when the Cabinet lifted the ban on GMO maize, which decision triggered several legal challenges in Court leading to key court decisions. On 12 October 2023, the Environment and Land Court (ELC) dismissed a petition filed by the Law Society of Kenya in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & 3 others [2023] KEELC 20682 (KLR), ruling that the government had followed due process in lifting the ban. Subsequently, on 7 November 2024, the High Court dismissed additional petitions in Mwangi & 6 others v Attorney General & 6 others [2024], on the grounds that the issue had already been determined in the previous case.  

These decisions initially cleared regulatory hurdles, allowing the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) to proceed with public consultations on genetically modified BT maize in December 2024. The intention was to align Kenya with African nations like Egypt, Burkina Faso, Sudan, and South Africa that have adopted GMO technology.

However, this legal momentum was recently halted by a Court of Appeal decision issued on 7 March 2025. The appellate court issued a status quo order restraining the Cabinet, NBA, and relevant ministries from taking further action to implement or advance the 2022 Cabinet decision on GMOs. This stop order includes halting any importation or regulatory steps relating to GMO crops and foods. Although the Court of Appeal ruling did not evaluate the merits of the appeal, it ensures that no further steps are taken pending the determination of the main appeal.

Despite these developments from the courts, the broader conversation on biotechnology continues. The potential benefits of GMOs, such as improved yields, pest resistance, and cost efficiency are significant and not be overlooked. Kenya had already approved genetically modified cotton and maize for environmental release, as well as field trials for drought-tolerant maize. Other approved projects were vitamin-A-enhanced cassava and bio-fortified sorghum. These projects could open new frontiers for investment, research, and food production.

To fully realize the GMO benefits, Kenya must benchmark against global best practices. Jurisdictions with established biotechnology frameworks, such as the United States and the European Union, offer valuable lessons in balancing innovation, safety, and public trust. The U.S. Coordinated Framework for Biotechnology divides oversight among the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Kenya mirrors this through its multi-agency regulatory model under the Biosafety Act. The Act allows cooperation between the NBA and agencies like the Department of Public Health, Kenya Bureau of Standards, and the National Environment Management Authority, among others. This structure ensures rigorous risk assessments, streamlined approvals, and post-market surveillance of GMOs.

Kenya’s framework also reflects elements of the European Union’s precautionary approach, which mandates rigorous scientific risk assessments before approval. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) emphasizes transparency, public consultation, and clear labeling—features echoed in Kenya’s Biosafety (Labelling) Regulations and NBA procedures for public participation in GMO approvals.

However, Kenya differs from the EU model in a critical aspect. Paragraph 3 of the Fifth Schedule to the Biosafety Act states that a lack of scientific knowledge or consensus shall not necessarily indicate a particular level of risk, an absence of risk, or an acceptable risk. While Kenya has broadly adopted precautionary elements, this clause suggests a more pragmatic approach—one that allows regulators to proceed with risk assessments and evidence-based evaluations even in the face of scientific uncertainty, rather than automatically invoking caution.

While Kenya’s legal framework is robust and largely aligned with global standards, as affirmed by the High Court in the 2023 Law Society of Kenya case, continuous benchmarking is essential to keep pace with rapid technological advancements. The NBA and other stakeholders must remain proactive in assessing emerging risks and refining policies to maintain regulatory effectiveness.

There remains significantly low public trust in GMOs in Kenya. Skepticism, driven by misinformation, limited awareness, and concerns over corporate control remains high. To foster informed acceptance, the NBA and other stakeholders must invest in transparent communication, inclusive dialogue, and community engagement. In its 7 March 2025 ruling, the Court of Appeal emphasized judicial oversight by invoking the preservatory orders determination of the appeal.

The GMO debate must go beyond law and science in addressing social and cultural concerns. There should be continuous engagement on how rural farmers will adapt, how traditional food systems will evolve, and how to leverage on the benefits of GMO adoption through thoughtful policies. Transition to these food biotechnologies should embrace diverse voices to be inclusive and responsible. Kenya stands at crossroads in balancing global best practices with local realities. Through careful legal consideration, transparency, and public trust, Kenya can position itself as a continental leader in agricultural biotechnology.