At the end of November 2012, Kenya banned the importation of genetically modified food on health grounds. A stormy public “debate” followed.

On one side were those adamantly on the side of “modernity” and “science.” Equating genetic modification with all biotechnologies, proponents denounced the lack of “science” evident in opponents’ arguments.

Which focused on the fact that the health consequences of GM food, in the long term (as opposed to demonstrations by two-year trials) are still undetermined.

But which also on the potential economic consequences of shifting to GM in agriculture as concerns planting materials, seeds and the livelihoods of small-scale agricultural producers.

A dialogue of the deaf.

To which some context needs to be brought to bear.

First, there is a problem with agricultural productivity in Kenya. Agriculture still accounts for a quarter of gross domestic product, with tea, horticultural products, coffee and tobacco continuing to top exports.

Agriculture still provides for 75 per cent of employment. But agriculture fluctuates wildly—in 2011, for example, registering only 1.5 per cent growth. This low and unstable growth is inevitably attributed to global demand, the weather and—importantly—the high costs of agricultural production.

For there is limited ‘high-potential’ agricultural land (only 17 per cent of all land) and continued reliance on rain-fed agriculture, despite ever-more severe alternations between drought and floods. There is low diversification. And there is little uptake of new technologies.

This, coupled with the non-commercialisation of small-scale agricultural production, means that famine in times of drought is routine—as is the lament that distribution and marketing constraints mean that food available in agricultural areas cannot be efficiently moved to non-agricultural areas.

Second, there is no disagreement about the problem of agricultural productivity.

Agricultural policy has reiterated and sought to address all of the above if not from independence on (when the focus was on cash crops for export), then certainly for the last decade or so.

Third, where there is disagreement is, apparently, on how to deal with the problem of low agricultural productivity. Proponents of GM see it as a magic bullet. Why not increase quality and yields if the means exist to do so?

Opponents of GM see it as, at best, an unpalatable complement to transiting to irrigation-fed agriculture and addressing distribution and marketing constraints.

‘Unpalatable’ because of not just unknown health considerations but also economic considerations—drawing from global trade debates on intellectual property and the nefarious workings of multinational biotechnology companies.

Fourth, it is here that—frankly—the Kenyan scientific community needs to speak up. As do the regulatory bodies that exist to handle not just licensing and environmental risks but also contentions about economic and health risks.

“Traditional” biotechnology includes tissue culture and marker assisted selection. “New” biotechnology involves genetic engineering.

Tissue culture already provides planting materials for both cash crops for export (flowers, pyrethrum, strawberries) and food crops (bananas, cassava, potatoes, sugarcane and sweet potatoes).

Marker assisted selection is being used to develop resistance to gray leaf spot and the streak virus in maize, smut in sugarcane and the Russian wheat aphid in wheat.

It is also being used to develop drought-tolerant maize and wheat and for diversity in cassava and sweet potatoes. Genetic engineering, however, is so far only being done in laboratories with field testing.

Research here concerns storage pest resistant maize, nutritionally fortified sorghum and virus resistant sweet potatoes.

The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute houses some of this research—but other national and international agricultural research institutions are involved, including those affiliated with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, which provides USD25 million annually to biotechnology research globally.

Bilateral aid agencies—notably that of the United States—provide 60 per cent of biotechnology research funding.

Private philanthropic foundations are also active, including the Howard Buffet Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. And private multinational biotechnology companies make up the balance, including Monsanto and Syngenta.

This is the scientific and support community which should be speaking out—telling us what they are doing, with whom and with what results.

As for regulation, the Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy was only passed in 2007, followed by the Biosafety Act, 2008.

They cover both “traditional” and “new” biotechnology, providing for risk assessment and management—tasked to the National Biosafety Authority, as is monitoring and inspection.

The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service is responsible for implementing the policy as concerns the introduction and use of GM plants and regulating the import of GM seeds.

The Kenya Bureau of Standards is responsible for regulating GM food. The National Environment Management Authority can concern itself with biosafety in respect of the environment. And the Industrial Property Act, 2001 provides for the patenting (and respect of patenting) of research innovations, including seeds.

These are the regulatory authorities which should also be speaking out—as to their distinct areas of competence with respect to the public debate.

The problem is, of course, that the Kenyan scientific community, the different regulatory authorities and the public proponents and opponents of GM essentially speak different languages as concerns risk.

Because they do not understand each other and speak to different kinds of risk, we end up with the kind of arbitrary fits and starts illustrated by the latest ban. All is truly lost in translation.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is doing her graduate studies at L’Institut d’etudes politiques (Sciences Po) in Paris, France