I read Hon. Matia Kasaija’s comment titled “Why Biosafety law is vital” in the New Vision of Tuesday May 2013 with keen interest. Whereas I agree with tittle of his comment, the contents are adversarial to the future of Uganda’s food system and strategic economic objectives as articulated in Uganda’s Vision 2040.

1. Hon. Matia Kasaija, Biosafety Law is vital for different reasons
I read Hon. Matia Kasaija‟s comment titled “Why Biosafety law is vital”in
the New Vision of Tuesday May 2013 with keen interest. Whereas I agree
with tittle of his comment, the contents are adversarial to the future of
Uganda‟s food system and strategic economic objectives as articulated in
Uganda‟s Vision 2040. This is because; the National Biotechnology and
Biosafety bill 2012 that the Minister recently tabled in parliament seeks to
spread Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Uganda. From the basis
of discourse I have been following, millions of Ugandans, and especially
small holder farmers, instead expected the Hon. Minister to present a bill
aimed at detecting, stopping and destroying GMOs. Evidence that shows
GMOs will harm economic livelihoods of many small holder farmers,
downgrade health of millions of citizens, increase hazards to environment,
compromise indigenous, cultural and traditions of our society and cripple
strategic economic interests of Uganda is all over the place – I will delve
into this in future.
Importantly, all GMO crusaders, now including Minister Matia Kasaija
ignore the core economic questions. Where will Uganda sell its GMO
products?Will transformation from an Organic into a GMO economy give
Uganda a competitive advantage? Available numbers illuminate a different
pathway from what GMO proponents propose.For example, datasets from
the International Trade Center (ITC), a United Nations outfit –show that
untapped Organics market for agricultural products in Europe is $60 billion,
Japan $11 billion and US $41 billion. So why would Uganda want to run
away from this market, instead of strategizing to harness it, especially
so,now that, the world wants GMO products banned or labeled?
In niche‟ markets that Uganda should be targeting like, New Zealand, no
GMO foods are grown in the country. In Germany, there is a ban on the
cultivation or sale of GMO maize. In Ireland, all GM crops were banned for
cultivation in 2009, and there is a voluntary labeling system for foods
containing GM foods to be identified as such. In Austria, Hungary, Greece,
Bulgaria and Luxembourg; there are bans on the cultivation and sale of
GMOs. In France: Monsanto's MON810 GM corn had been approved but
its cultivation was forbidden in 2008. In Madeira,-this small autonomous
Portugese Island requested a country-wide ban on genetically modified

2. crops last year and was permitted to do so by the European Union. In
Switzerland, the country banned all GMO crops, animals, and plants on its
fields and farms in a public referendum in 2005. In India; the government
placed a last-minute ban on GM eggplant just before it was scheduled to
begin being planted in 2010. If these niche destinations for Uganda‟s agro
products like coffee, tea, cotton, flowers, tobacco etc outlawed GMOs –
why should we even think about making Uganda a GMO economy?
In spite of adjuncts of Climate change, Uganda is still feeding itself at a
time when its arable land utilization is below 50%. Indeed over 80% of
farmers are defacto conservation and organic farmers. If our conservation
practices are accentuated through a reformed budget architecture that puts
more money in agriculture – we can feed the region and world without
engaging in any form of genetic manipulation. Indeed, the 500billion that
Hon. Matia Kasaija mentioned as income fetched by banana farmers
annually is not from GMO bananas – but rather from organically grown
bananas across the country. Now the use of banana „bacterial wilt
catastrophe‟ as an excuse/ploy to spread GMOs is collapsing – because
farmers have discovered that sanitary measures have huge potential to
contain the wilt as was done in Ethiopia in 1973. The answer to banana
bacterial wilt is therefore not GMOs.
In his comment, the Hon. Minister defined modern biotechnology as
“recombinant DNA technology, or genetic engineering/ modification (GMO)
as the use of biotechnology tools to transfer useful genetic characteristics
into plants, animals, or micro-organisms” – This definition means negative
implications for our traditions and culture. For example, it could mean
transfer of genes from a pig to millet or rice etcetera. What will this mean
for those whose religion consider eating porksacrilegious? It may also
mean that genes of fish can be transferred to rice, beans etc. I have
interacted with many people who don‟t eat fish and many cultures that
consider eating of fish a taboo (omuziiro). What will passing of a bill that
seeks to spread GMOs as defined by the Hon. Minister mean for them? I
think it is hugely important not to hide intentions of this bill under terms like
regulation, biosafety etc. The objectives of this bill are by and large – to
spread GMOs in Uganda.

3. Instead of promoting this bill in current shape, I urge the Hon. Minister to
use his positive energy and influence to enact policies supporting small
holder family farmers, who form the basis of our economy and our country.
Vital issues for small holder family farmers are improved access to value
addition, knowledge and tools, credit, inputs and markets. Despite these
obstacles organic family farming is growing at 38% per year in Uganda.
Therefore, the implementation of supportive policies could liberate an
enormous growth potential for the sector, providing better income
opportunities for low-income small holder farmers and conserving
biodiversity. Indeed, our dear Members of Parliament (MPs) should vote
the bill if and only its objective is to stop entry of GMOs in Uganda – finding
and destroying GMOs where they already exist in Uganda.
Morrison Rwakakamba
Chief Executive Officer
Agency for Transformation
mrwakakamba@agencyft.org
www.agencyft.org