The debate on the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Bill hit a minor bump after two MPs on Wednesday disagreed with the majority on the Parliamentary committee charged with scrutinizing the controversial Bill.
While the majority of the committee members are for the passing of the Bill, two legislators moved to have a minority report calling for the bill to be returned back to government.
The two, MPs Atkins Katusabe (FDC, Kasese) and Denis Lee Oguzu (FDC, Maracha), however do not disagree with the Bill in its entirety. They just want, among other things, the public to be consulted more.
The majority Argument
In a committee report submitted on the floor of Parliament the committee on Science and Technology said the law is very important especially that the National Agricultural Research Organization already in advanced stages conducting research on plants produced through biotechnology in order to come up with products that overcome chronic problems.
Introduced to Parliament in 2012, the Bill seeks to legislate for the research, production and use of genetically produced products.
In their attempt to justify the Bill, majority committee members argued that GMO research and development started decades ago and is on an unstoppable move as there are over 1200 biotech industries in over 30 countries and there is already a lot of GMO in Uganda especially in the field of medicine.
“On a global perspective, the biggest challenges are how to adopt the production of food in view of the climate changes and how to develop further the role of agricultural biotechnology in combatting the global challenge. Crops resistant to floods drought saline and acid soils may be needed.
“Several crops with these traits are already being researched on in Uganda and are in advanced stages. The enactment of an enabling law will therefore enhance the safe development of modern biotechnology,” the committee sought to move the House.
The minority argument
However, dissenting argue that there has been inadequate public consultation about the bill. They also argued that there’s no impact assessment about the Bill, let alone the provisions being incomprehensive and with inadequate bioethical considerations.
They argue that, “The Bill should be referred back to the sponsor so as to undertake comprehensive public involvement as required under the national objective and directive principal of state policy x of the constitution of the republic or Uganda.”
This, they say, will ensure narrowing of perception gap, building confidence, attaining shared understanding and responsibility in in the development and implementation of the law on biotechnology in Uganda.
The debate returns on the floor next week.
