Kenya is paying the price for holding back on the adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops. A recent study by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) found that Kenya lost an estimated USD 157 million over the past five years due to delays in approving and commercialising essential GM crops such as Bt maize, Bt cotton, and the late-blight-resistant potato.
According to the AATF, this figure reflects just part of the broader economic and social costs of slow technology adoption, including reduced crop yields, higher import dependence, and missed opportunities to improve farmer livelihoods.
Kenya’s agricultural regulatory system has one of the most extended approval timelines in the world, estimated to be between 12 and 15 years, compared to approximately 7–10 years in countries like Brazil or Argentina. This slow pace has left farmers dependent on costly and less efficient conventional methods.
AATF’s data show that if GM crops had been approved earlier, Kenya could have achieved significant gains in food output, export potential, and environmental protection.
For instance, Bt maize alone accounts for an estimated loss of USD 67 million over five years. Kenya could have produced nearly 194,000 additional tonnes of maize, cutting down imports and improving food security. The adoption of Bt maize would also have reduced pesticide expenses for smallholder farmers.
It has also been estimated that Bt cotton incurs costs of about USD 1.2 million within the same period. Earlier commercialisation could have strengthened Kenya’s textile industry, increased farmer income, and reduced the need for cotton imports.
The 3R-gene potato, resistant to late blight, represents an even larger loss of USD 89 million. Projections suggest that Kenya could gain up to USD 247 million in welfare benefits over 30 years from the full-scale adoption of this initiative.
Altogether, Kenya could have earned nearly USD 467 million in economic value within three decades by adopting these crops promptly.
Kenya’s delayed adoption has left economic losses as noted above. By not deploying GMOs, Kenya has lost crops as a result of climate and environmental changes, which pest- and disease-resistant GM varieties address.
Adopting Bt maize and cotton could have reduced Kenya’s carbon emissions by up to 0.7 million metric tons of CO₂ per year. GM crops would have reduced pesticide use by 30–50%, thereby improving soil quality and mitigating the health risks associated with chemical exposure. Higher yields from these varieties would also reduce the need for farmland expansion, preventing deforestation and conserving biodiversity.
Across Africa, the debate over GMO adoption isn’t unique to Kenya. In recent months, similar discussions have gained traction in Nigeria, where conversations around the safety, accessibility, and long-term impact of genetically modified crops have sparked national attention.
Kenya’s debate over GM crops has been influenced by politics, misinformation, and litigation. Despite regulatory approval for GM maize in 2022, court injunctions and activist opposition have repeatedly stalled progress. In October 2023, the Environment and Land Court dismissed a petition by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) that challenged the importation and cultivation of Bt maize, ruling that the regulatory and biosafety bodies had set up adequate frameworks.
As of March 2025, the High Court temporarily halted GM maize imports, citing “insufficient public participation”. These setbacks reveal the need for a more science-policy interface, one that enables transparent communication and evidence-based decision-making.
A recent study published in 2024 assessed the potential impact of Kenya’s late-blight-resistant (3R-gene) potato varieties, Asante, Shangi, and Tigoni. Late blight currently causes yield losses of up to 23%, while farmers spend nearly 12% of production costs on fungicides.
The study estimated that the 3R-gene Shangi variety alone could yield net benefits of KES 845.9 million (USD 8.2 million) annually. However, each year of delay reduces the net present value of these benefits by roughly 36%.
This case demonstrates that every additional year of hesitation translates directly into foregone income for farmers and lost opportunities for food security.
Kenya’s decision to revisit its stance on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has reignited one of Africa’s most important and divisive conversations: how far should we go in embracing biotechnology to feed a growing continent? For decades, Africa’s agricultural potential has been limited not by lack of land or labour, but by hesitation. Kenya’s GMO debate highlights this tension between old fears and new possibilities, between cautious policymaking and the urgent need for transformation. If the country can streamline regulation, engage the public with transparency, and demonstrate real success through pilot programs, it could set a powerful example for others.
Across the continent, climate pressures are mounting, food prices are rising, and the limits of traditional farming are clear. Science alone won’t solve these challenges, but ignoring it won’t help either. The question now is whether Kenya and Africa can turn this moment of controversy into one of courage. The future of African agriculture may well depend on it.
