Civil society organizations and food sovereignty advocates have raised concerns over corporate control of Kenya’s food systems, warning that despite a recent court ruling against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), agribusiness corporations are likely to push back through policy loopholes and legislative maneuvers.
Speaking at a press conference, leaders from Greenpeace Africa, the Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya (BIBA Kenya), and other civil society groups emphasized that the fight against GMOs is far from over. They cautioned that multinational corporations could still manipulate seed policies, making Kenyan farmers dependent on expensive, patented seeds while eroding the country’s agricultural biodiversity.
The High Court’s decision to uphold a ban on GMOs was described as a “hard-won victory” for food sovereignty. Activists argued that this ruling was not just about rejecting genetically modified crops but about protecting Kenya’s control over its food system.
“This ruling reaffirmed what we have been saying all along—GMOs are not about feeding Kenya; they are about controlling Kenya’s food system,” said Ann Maina, National Coordinator of BIBA Kenya.
However, activists believe corporate interests will persist, using trade deals, intellectual property laws, and policy changes to advance their agenda. One of their biggest concerns is that farmers may soon lose the right to save and share seeds due to restrictive seed laws influenced by international agreements like UPOV 91.
Looking ahead, the groups are now focusing on an upcoming seed litigation case in May, which could have significant consequences for farmers’ rights. If corporations succeed in enforcing seed patent laws, farmers could be required to buy new seeds every planting season, rather than saving seeds from their own harvests.
“This case is not just about farmers—it affects every Kenyan. When farmers lose control over seeds, we all lose access to diverse, healthy, and affordable food,” said Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa.
Atieno warned that corporate-controlled agriculture prioritizes high yields and uniformity over biodiversity and nutrition, which could lead to monocultures that fail to nourish communities adequately.
Civil society organizations are advocating for a shift toward agroecology, a farming system that promotes biodiversity, seed sovereignty, and sustainable practices. They argue that Kenya should invest in locally adapted, climate-resilient seed varieties rather than relying on imported GM seeds that require costly chemical inputs.
“Our research institutions and universities must work alongside farmers to improve seed varieties in a way that benefits the people, not corporations,” Atieno added.
The groups called on policymakers to prioritize Kenya’s food sovereignty and resist pressure from global agribusiness firms. They also urged the media, civil society, and the public to remain vigilant and push for policies that protect farmers’ rights.
With the seed litigation case approaching, activists warn that Kenya stands at a crossroads. If restrictive seed laws are passed, they argue, food sovereignty and biodiversity could be permanently compromised.
“This battle is about more than just GMOs—it’s about who controls Kenya’s food, farmers, and future,” said Maina. “We have won an important battle, but the fight is far from over.”
As the legal battle over seed sovereignty unfolds, civil society groups remain firm in their demand: food policies should serve the interests of Kenyan farmers and consumers, not multinational corporations.