Petition to the 9th parliament of Uganda to Adopt the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill 2012 into Law

By Clet Wandui Masiga, Tropical Institute of Development Innovations (TRIDI)


Technology and innovations are critical to addressing some of the key challenges constraining agricultural production in Uganda. Biotechnology is one of the innovative tools that are used to increase production of agriculture. However in Uganda, there is no law that regulates its use, which is a requirement for countries signatories to Cartagena protocol on biosafety. The Uganda farmers and global community are requesting the Uganda’s 9th parliament to adopt the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill 2012 into Law. This petition is sponsored by the Tropical Institute of Development Innovations (TRIDI) on behalf of Uganda Alliance for Science and all stakeholders involved in promoting the application of biotechnology. We are urging the members of 9th Parliament of Uganda to quickly pass this bill into Law before their end of term in May 2016. This will be the greatest gift the 9th Parliament will offer its voters before their term end. Sign petition available at


This petition is written to The Right Honorable Speaker of Parliament of Ugandawith copies to the President of Uganda; the Vice President; the Rt. Hon. Deputy Speaker; the Prime Minister; Minister of Education, Sport, Science & Technology; Minister of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries; Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development; State Minister of Finance for Planning; Minister of Water & Environment; State Minister for Higher Education & Technology; and all other ministers of Uganda.

The purpose of the petition is to request the Government of Uganda to adopt “The National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill, 2012,” whose purpose is to ensure the safe development and use of modern biotechnology for national development. All the procedures to enact the Bill into law have been done.

The only step left is the final approval by Parliament. This law is needed to help farmers fight major challenges such as weeds, diseases, pests, drought, and nitrogen deficiency. 

The current issues agriculture biotech research is addressing in Uganda

In Uganda, farming is increasingly becoming non-competitive, expensive and unprofitable largely due to major challenges such as weeds, diseases, pests, drought and nitrogen deficiency. Modern agricultural practices will give farmers another and better option to control pests and diseases.

  • Weeds: Weeds are a major challenge to the production of staple food and cash crops such as maize, sorghum, soy beans, coffee etc. Responsible use of biotechnology, especially herbicide-tolerant crops, reduces backbreaking labor of farmers — especially women — who do most of the backbreaking work on farms such weeding using the hand-held hoe. Scientists have successfully developed herbicide-tolerant maize and soybeans. These have been grown for the last 20 years in many countries, and we only need the enabling law to regulate their development and deployment in Uganda.
  • Diseases: These are limiting production of both food and cash-crops in Uganda. For instance, Banana Bacterial Wilt (BBW), Fusarium Wilt, Black Sigatoka, Coffee Wilt, Cassava Brown Streak and Cassava Mosaic Diseases; Early/late Blight, Sweet Potato Weevils and Viruses, are continuously infecting all bananas, coffee, cassava, Irish and sweet potatoes respectively, across the country. These diseases cause huge income losses and food insecurity to the nation. NARO has used modern biotechnology to develop resistant/tolerant varieties of these affected crops, but these varieties are kept due to lack of an enabling law that will allow farmers to access these crops.
  • Drought: Every year, farmers experience losses in maize and other cereal crops production due to drought. Already scientists from NARO have used modern biotechnology to develop maize that is tolerant to drought using modern biotechnology. We will need this law if farmers are to benefit.
  • Pests: Weevils, nematodes, whiteflies, stem/stalk borers, coffee twig-borers, African cotton bollworms and fruit-flies are some of the key pests that are ravaging bananas, beans, cassava, maize, coffee, cotton, fruits—especially mangoes and pawpaws— respectively, in Uganda. We can use advanced scientific tools like modern biotechnology to develop resistant crops, fruits and trees to avoid using chemicals to spray pests which may also kill useful insects like bees, butterflies, as well. In turn, using less chemical sprays will help save our environment.
  • Climate Change: The increasing rise in temperatures due to Global Warming is affecting farming with unpredictable and prolonged dry spells, rainstorms and flooding. This is also negatively impacting on soils, rendering land unproductive due to massive erosions, and nutrient/fertility loss. NARO has used modern biotechnology to develop nitrogen-efficient, soil salinity-tolerant and water efficient crops like NEWEST-rice that grows in less fertile soils.

If farmers are to access the modern biotechnology crops named above, Uganda needs the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill passed into law to regulate and govern their deployment. This Bill is currently before Parliament and farmers call upon their legislators to pass the Bill for them to access these technologies and manage ever-growing farm challenges.

The President of Uganda has himself publicly urged members of Parliament to pass the Biosafety Bill.

Please sign the petition at

and please help circulate widely within your networks.


Breaking out of the bubble

By Clet Wandui Masiga

Nature Biotechnology editorial March 10th 2016 had this very interesting editorial. It is a must read and such an interesting piece. The article available at

The biotech community has made remarkable progress over the past 20 years. Now it needs to break out of its bubble.

The biotech community has made remarkable progress over the past 20 years. Now it needs to break out of its bubble.

Since this journal was relaunched 20 years ago, biotech has brought hundreds of innovative medical, agricultural and industrial products to market. It has changed the lives of millions. It has made the livelihoods of millions. It is also no longer just recombinant DNA technology, but a broader set of principles and tools for engineering living systems. We can synthesize genes and proteins. We can assemble gene circuits. We can edit genomes. And we can print molecules, cells and even simple tissues. With such powerful technology, biotech should reach more and more corners of human life in the coming years. But this will happen only if society remains in step with technological advancement. And that requires the biotech community to break out of its bubble.

Over the past two decades, Nature Biotechnology has published some of the technologies behind the many recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies that have turned biotech into a multibillion dollar business. We have presented some of the advances behind bioengineered corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet and cotton varieties that have changed the face of agriculture. We have highlighted microbial engineering efforts that have led to greener, sustainable processes for producing fuels, chemicals and materials.

During that time, the wider world changed, too. In 1996, Nature Biotechnology had no ‘web presence’. Only geeks with 33.6-kb modems and a high tolerance for disconnection used the Internet. Google was 100 to the power 100; Amazon was two years old. There was no Wikipedia, no Facebook, no Twitter. News came on TV. Newspapers through the letterbox. This journal was read on paper. China and India were far-off, poor places. The European Union had 15 member countries, none from Eastern Europe. New York had twin towers. The world was more introspective, less global and much less informed.

Reality has changed but the public image of biotech has hardly shifted. Many in the public may have heard of the Human Genome Project. Others of GMOs. Some may even have heard of Synthia, the first synthetic organism rebooted from an artificial chromosome. But few outside the biotech inner circle really appreciate the radical changes that have taken, and continue to take, place.

So many things are happening so rapidly, it’s difficult for anyone to keep up. DNA sequencing power has gone from one human genome in 13 years to one every few hours. We can now ‘write’ sequence; we have engineered enzymes (zinc finger nucleases, TALENs and CRISPR-Cas9) that can edit our code; DNA synthesis costs have dropped 1,000-fold since 1996 to one cent per base; bits can be turned into atoms without human intervention through automated oligo synthesizers; three-dimensional scanners can turn living systems into digital information and bioprinters reproduce rudimentary representations of them; sequencing platforms, mass spectrometry and mass cytometry instruments can measure nucleic acids, proteins, metabolites, epigenetic and post-translation modifications and metabolites on a genome-wide level all the way down to single cells; new imaging methods are revealing living systems in unprecedented clarity and detail.

The pace of change means that we need to redouble our efforts to communicate them to the public. We can no longer remain in our bubble, talking to one another. We must spend more time looking out of the bubble and listening.

By being inward looking, the biotech community has appeared tone deaf to criticisms of its business practices. There are good reasons why companies need to charge high premiums for innovative bioengineered products. But arguing about the importance of R&D spending, attrition in drug development and the cost of clinical trials means little to ordinary people who are increasingly picking up the ticket for these drugs out of their own pockets.

Tackling the aloof image of biotech in the public eye means going beyond trite communication about healing ills, fueling the planet or feeding the world. We need to engage with the public about the social benefits—and costs—of new technologies that will impact everyday life. The worlds of research and clinic are converging. Smart technology, soft materials and stretchable electronics presage a time when data-collection devices will become more discreet and less invasive. Mobile devices and wearable sensors will present new possibilities to change our lives and behaviors. We will learn not only more about ourselves—our biology and that of our microbial flora—but also about the environment that we inhabit and care for.

We must recognize that our old model of communication will not work. Twenty years of passive, osmotic information flow from the biotech bubble to the outside world has done little to change public science literacy. Irrational fears about GMOs have not changed much since the 1990s. Transgenic animals remain recalcitrantly unpalatable as food. Deriving stem cells from human embryos remains as controversial as ever.

People have lives to lead, bread to win, families to raise, dreams to fulfill. They have little time to find out what biotech can do now or why they should care about it.

<a href=”//×250&t=artid%3Dnbt.3517%26type%3Ded%26issue%3D3%26abr%3D%21webtv&c=8340105678904797″><img src=”//×250&t=artid%3Dnbt.3517%26type%3Ded%26issue%3D3%26abr%3D%21webtv&c=8340105678904797″ alt=”Advertisement” /></a>

As the world of biotech moves from microbe manipulation to human biology, more needs to be done to debate the changes that may be coming. An informed dialog needs to be had about technological solutions that some may find morally discomforting, such as modifying the human germline, farming animals for humanized organs, engineering human enhancements and altering ecological niches for health objectives (e.g., transgenic mosquitoes against malaria or the Zika virus). Society needs to grapple with the privacy and security issues associated with wiring health and personal data into the web.

Public engagement is difficult. But one thing we can be sure of is that constructive dialog will not happen if biotech insiders remain within their bubble. We need to hear what people on the outside are thinking.

African more than developed countries farmers to reap more economic and environmental benefits of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

By Clet Wandui MASIGA

Conservation Biologist, Geneticist and Farm Entrepreneur


African farmers are set to benefit more from genetically engineered organisms than developed countries partly due to non-functional rights laws. Here are the conclusions from four peer reviewed publications evaluating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)  and herbicide tolerant (HT)/round ready (RR) traits.

Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services (Lu et al 2012). This is because transgenic crops producing insecticidal proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have proved effective in controlling bollworm and reducing the need for pesticides. In USA, the net benefits, includes convenience of roundup ready (RR) soybeans, significant value on operator and worker safety, environmental benefits and market risks diminishes sharply as the percent of roundup ready soybean acres increases (Marra et al 2004).

Perhaps the most important thing that African leaders will need to know is a tradeoff between farmers getting out of farming to pave way for rich mechanized farms or adopt HT tolerant crops and keep more people in farming hence consumers have more choices on markets than having a few that will dictate the food prices (–a practice I personally support). The latter option will happen naturally as long as farming remains unprofitable in Africa. Farmers will either scale up or out of farming. We will see younger people selling off land to bigger farm entrepreneurs.

In Argentina GMOs particularly RR soybeans has increased total factor production by 10% on average with cost savings being more for smaller farms than larger farms (Qaim & Traxler, 2005). In terms of economics, the global value of biotech seeds was USD15.7 billion and farm gate prices of harvested end product was USD133.3 billion (James Clive, 2014). Note that it costs about USD135 million to develop and commercialize a GM variety. So if a company makes profit of a billion is worth the investment. But many other people across the value chain benefits. According to Qaim & Traxler (2005), the largest share of benefits from RR soybean went to consumers (53%), followed by seed and biotechnology firms (34%), and agricultural producers (13%).It’s also important to note that even when Africa rejects GMOs, private seed companies using conventional technologies still market seeds worth more than USD55 billion annually.

In Argentina due to comparatively weak intellectual property protection and because only small technology mark-ups in seed prices and widespread adoption, Argentine soybean growers receive 90% of the benefits in that country which demonstrates that farmers in developing countries can gain considerably when they obtain access to suitable foreign innovations through technology spill-overs (Qaim & Traxler, 2005). On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries (Klumper & Qaim, 2014).

Africans and others who are fighting GMOs, will need to remember that in absence of Bt, there will be more sales from chemical companies most them are owned by Europeans and Asian entrepreneurs. Alternatively as GMOs are being fought, most of the seeds will continue to be provided by private seed companies and they will sale it as proprietary technology.

Because ignorance seems to be ruling the world, let me end by providing some factual data. The world top three seed companies include Monsanto, DuPont/pioneer and Syngenta. All combined make about USD28 billion annually. The top three agrochemical companies include Syngenta, Bayer and Basf and they make USD46 billion, the top three food processing companies include Nestle, Archer and unilever  and all together USD521 billion. And the top three food distribution companies include Walmat, Carrefour and Tesco and all together they make USD764 billion. So who is controlling the world or monopolizing world food?

I remain wondering if African leaders and others against GMOs have any of this data or have just been mislead with misinformation on subjects they do not understand. It’s therefore logical that African leaders need to make courageous and logical decision and support their farmers to have access to technology options for their development.


James, Clive. 2014. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief  No. 49. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

Klümper W, Qaim M (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS One. 2014 Nov 3;9(11):e111629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. eCollection 2014.

Lu Yanhui, Kongming Wu, Yuying Jiang, Yuyuan Guo,  & Nicolas Desneux (2012). Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature 487, 362-365 doi:10.1038/nature11153

Marra Michele C., Nicholas E. Piggott, and Gerald A. Carlson (2004). The net benefits, including convenience, of roundup ready® soybeans: results from a national survey.  NSF Center for IPM Technical Bulletin 2004-3. 39pp. Raleigh, NC

Matin Qaim and Greg Traxler (2005). Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects. Agricultural Economics. Volume 32, Issue 1, pages 73–86. DOI: 10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x







Africa needs courageous leaders like the Catholic Priests to benefit from genetically modified Organisms (GMOs)

By Clet Wandui MASIGA

Conservation Biologist, Geneticist and Farm Entrepreneur



On Saturday December 5th, 2015 at the National Agricultural Research Laboratories (NARL) of the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), the Director CARITAS, Justice and peace, Archdiocese of Kampala Rev. Fr. Vicent Kisenyi Byansi together with Caritas farmers praised research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rev. Fr. Vicent Kisenyi Byasi knelt down and openly apologized to his parishioners and participants who had attended a sensitization workshop on intensive livestock management, urban farming and biotechnology for having got duped/manipulated and misinformed about the science of genetic modification.


During the workshop, more than 70 farmer leaders and mobilisers from Caritas- Archdiocese of Kampala lauded the work GMOs and scientists in developing solutions to their farming challenges, including the use of genetic modification to address the dreadful banana bacteria wilt.


The catholic priest further urged the farmers and Ugandans to continue supporting the great work of scientists in finding solutions to some of their farming constraints. The leaders noted that a lot of mis-information had been spread by some people, including a few within Caritas, demonizing the work of the gallant scientists but they urged the scientists to continue the good work in championing the cause of farmers in the country. Fr Byansi particularly asked that those who led the mis-information to be forgiven by God. The workshop was organized by NARO in partnership with Caritas. The participants learnt of the available products of genetic modification in improving banana, cassava, maize, potato, sweet potato, and rice in Uganda. Participants also learnt on the potential risks with GM technology and how these risks are and must be managed using appropriate legislation as proposed in the National biotechnology and Biosafety Bill. Caritas farmer leaders, parishioners and its director pledged to fully support the need for the parliamentarians to adopt the bill.


He pledging his support for GMOs, Fr. Byasi re-echoed the words almost in almost exactly the same way as did Pope John Paul II in 2000 as part of the great jubilee celebrations. He stated that the famous words of Genesis entrust the earth to man’s use, not abuse.


Rev. Fr. Vicent Kisenyi Byasi is one of the first prominent leaders of the Catholic Church and Caritas Justice and Peace commission to openly declare support for GMOs. The Catholic-founded CARITAS is one of the key anti-GMO groups in Uganda and globally. This was a historic undertaking by our Catholic leadership and parishioners who also learnt DNA technology is used to create new crop varieties for the benefit of human kind.  They acknowledged that they had been misled by organic promoters and anti-GMO activists and expressed support for GMOs to solve some of challenges they face in their daily farming activities. They said that non of anti-GMO activists, soil scientists, organists or organic promoters, pseudo-scientists and some misled priests, are not solving nor even attempting to solve serious crop pests, diseases and abiotic stresses.


The participants disclosed that there is an organic promoter who works with anti-GMO activists and has been selling farmers a fake anti-chemical claiming it controls banana bacterial wilt disease. This crooked business man had in addition been very successful in misleading the Catholic Church in particular CARITAS to mobilize its members and farmers, to be trained on the use and adoption of his concoction which NARO recently discovered on testing to be a mere combination of fertilizers and some unknown formulation. The crook was even telling lies that he had gotten approval of NARO which was not true.


The Catholic priest asked the parishioners to be sharp-eyed not to be duped by anti-GMO activists who are not specialists in plant breeding, nor do not possess any scientific standing, as to oppose genetic engineering. He said he has a personal firm belief that GM-technology presents immense opportunities for farmers to benefit from.


I take this opportunity to thank Rev. Fr. Vicent Kisenyi Byasi and the Parishioners of the Archidiocese of Kampala for taking this courageous position in leading the church to adopt the GMOs whose safety and benefits has been proven over nearly the past two decades in countries with more than half of the world’s population. Other religious leaders and priests should emulate this catholic priest and help our people have access to this modern technology to make their farming competitive and profitable. This will also lead to increased productivity of farm products for food, fuel, fibre and feed.


According to Wikipedia, in 1999, after two years of discussions, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life stated that modifying the genes of plants and animals is theologically acceptable. The Guardian reported that “Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice- president of the pontifical academy, said: ‘We are increasingly encouraged that the advantages of genetic engineering of plants and animals are greater than the risks. The risks should be carefully followed through openness, analysis and controls, but without a sense of alarm.’ Referring to genetically modified products such as corn and soya, Sgreccia added: ‘We give it a prudent ‘yes’ We cannot agree with the position of some groups that say it is against the will of God to meddle with the genetic make-up of plants and animals.'”


In 2000 as part of the Great Jubilee Pope John Paul II gave an address concerning agriculture, at which he said: The “famous words of Genesis entrust the earth to man’s use, not abuse. They do not make man the absolute arbiter of the earth’s governance, but the Creator’s “co-worker”: a stupendous mission, but one which is also marked by precise boundaries that can never be transgressed with impunity. This is a principle to be remembered in agricultural production itself, whenever there is a question of its advance through the application of biotechnologies, which cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of immediate economic interests. They must be submitted beforehand to rigorous scientific and ethical examination, to prevent them from becoming disastrous for human health and the future of the earth.


A 2002 meeting between bishops and scientists in the Philippines concluded that biotechnology could be an important stepping stone in the struggle against hunger and environmental pollution.


A 2003 symposium gathered by Cardinal Renato T. Martino has examined the use of GMOs in modern agriculture. The symposium’s study argued that the future of humanity is at stake and that there is no room for the ideological arguments advanced by environmentalists. Velasio De Paolis, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Urban University, has said that it was “easy to say no to GM food if your stomach is full”.

A 2009 study on genetically modified organisms sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences came to a favorable conclusion on GMOs, viewing them as praiseworthy for improving the lives of the poor.

This year (2015), Pope Francis wrote and released the Encyclical Letter.  The letter suggests the need for a scientific-evidence-based decision-making in advancement of a modern agriculture that offers food, nutrition and income security.  He also seems to respects scientists’ right to protect their intellectual property [IP] from the works of their hands and brains, just as Arts-professionals or artisans do copy right their works (literary works, music, art, dance, drama, comedy, books e.t.c).

Quote: “If an artist cannot be stopped from using his or her creativity, neither should those who possess particular gifts for the advancement of science and technology be prevented from using their God-given talents for the service of others”


The detailed key excerpts are:

New biological technologies………..


  1. In the philosophical and theological vision of the human being and of creation which I have presented, it is clear that the human person, endowed with reason and knowledge, is not an external factor to be excluded. While human intervention on plants and animals is permissible when it pertains to the necessities of human life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only “if it remains within reasonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or saving human lives”.[106]The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits and that “it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly”.[107]All such use and experimentation “requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation”.[108]


  1. Here I would recall the balanced position of Saint John Paul II, who stressed the benefits of scientific and technological progress as evidence of “the nobility of the human vocation to participate responsibly in God’s creative action”, while also noting that “we cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without paying due attention to the consequences of such interference in other areas”.[109]He made it clear that the Church values the benefits which result “from the study and applications of molecular biology, supplemented by other disciplines such as genetics, and its technological application in agriculture and industry”.[110]But he also pointed out that this should not lead to “indiscriminate genetic manipulation”[111] which ignores the negative effects of such interventions. Human creativity cannot be suppressed. If an artist cannot be stopped from using his or her creativity, neither should those who possess particular gifts for the advancement of science and technology be prevented from using their God-given talents for the service of others. We need constantly to rethink the goals, effects, overall context and ethical limits of this human activity, which is a form of power involving considerable risks.


  1. This, then, is the correct framework for any reflection concerning human intervention on plants and animals, which at present includes genetic manipulation by biotechnology for the sake of exploiting the potential present in material reality. The respect owed by faith to reason calls for close attention to what the biological sciences, through research uninfluenced by economic interests, can teach us about biological structures, their possibilities and their mutations. Any legitimate intervention will act on nature only in order “to favour its development in its own line, that of creation, as intended by God”.[112]


  1. It is difficult to make a general judgement about genetic modification (GM), whether vegetable or animal, medical or agricultural, since these vary greatly among themselves and call for specific considerations. The risks involved are not always due to the techniques used, but rather to their improper or excessive application. Genetic mutations, in fact, have often been, and continue to be, caused by nature itself. Nor are mutations caused by human intervention a modern phenomenon. The domestication of animals, the crossbreeding of species and other older and universally accepted practices can be mentioned as examples. We need but recall that scientific developments in GM cereals began with the observation of natural bacteria which spontaneously modified plant genomes. In nature, however, this process is slow and cannot be compared to the fast pace induced by contemporary technological advances, even when the latter build upon several centuries of scientific progress.


In conclusion, GMOs continue to benefit farmers in countries where half of the word population lives. However, there continues to be a lot of misinformation about GMOs. We need courageous leaders like Rev. Fr. Vicent Kisenyi Byasi to take broad decisions to support use of this GMOs to benefit humanity.

Animal breeding using genetic engineering proves enormous potential in Agricultural production and public health

By Clet Wandui Masiga

Today the November the 23rd 2015, I attended and presented at the second biennial national agricultural biosciences conference (NABIO2015), at the school of food science, nutrition & biosystems engineering conference centre, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. My presentation title was “Animal breeding using genetic engineering proves enormous potential in Agricultural production and public health”. Gauging from the reactions and questions from the audience, it was evident many people did not know that Genetic engineering of animals was taking place. The participants demanded to know when Uganda will bring such animal breeds. Below is the abstract of my presentation. It has also been published in the book of abstracts.

Animal breeding using genetic engineering proves enormous potential in Agricultural production and public health

CletWandui Masiga1*


1Tropical institute of development innovations (TRIDI), P O Box 493, Entebbe Uganda

* Corresponding author. Email:;

Tel: +256 772 457155


Animal breeding using genetic engineering (GE) tool is the development of new breeds of animals having a specific trait to an embryo by introducing, eliminating or rearranging specific genes using the methods of modern molecular biology, particularly those techniques referred to as recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques. The tool has been used since its discovery in 1970s from model research species to farm enterprises for the benefit of human kind. In 1980 GE mice was developed and in 1985, GE livestock and fish were first developed and many others have followed. These GE animals are vital for meeting the world’s future demands for increasing food, making animal production competitive and also in addressing public health concerns. The objective of this study was to document the progress made in breeding livestock using genetic engineering, provide information on how it’s done, the importance of such animals, limitation for their adoption and provide perspectives on its future. A transgenic animal results from the process that involves development of the gene construct and inserting that construct into the embryo. Other GE animals are produced using other approaches like genome editing and cisgenics. These GE animals are currently used in research as disease models, biomedical field in pharmaceuticals and xenotransplantation, in industrial processes and in agricultural production. There are currently few GE animals or products from them that have been commercially released or approved for solving human demands. Key among them  include GloFish (fish), ATryn (goats), transchromosomical cattle, xenotrasplation pigs, OX513A (GE mosquito, Aedes aegypti).   In agriculture for food there is none that is on the market to date but so far the GE agricultural animals developed include cows, sheep, chickens, pigs, and fish. Specific examples include Mastitis resistant cows, pigs expressing salivary phytase, Omega-3 pigs, Mad cow resistant cows, GE chickens that don’t transmit bird flu, and fast growing salmon. Looking into the future, GE animals hold potential to revolutionize public health and agriculture. However GE animals are being resisted by environmentalists and organic farmer advocates based on precautionary principle and for unknown safety risks to humans, biodiversity and the environment. These environmentalists and organic farmer and their consumers have influenced enactment of strict regulatory regimes that makes it difficult to commercialize GE animals. GE animals will not alone solve the world’s future animal demands for food and health issues but the resistance to use this technology is immoral and unethical. Resistance is based mainly on consumer preferences of rich populations and not those of the farmers and in areas where the technologies are really needed. In conclusion GE is a new breeding/production technology which may need a revision of current regulatory definitions to investigate risk based on the characteristics of its products rather than the breeding technology.



My personal story on involvement in GMO promotion

My name is Clet Wandui Masiga and I am a Conservation Biologist, Geneticist, and farm entrepreneur from Uganda. Currently I work as a research scientist at the Tropical Institute of Development Innovations (TRIDI) and am a Cornell Alliance for Science Fellow. My wife Sylvia and I have four sons. She is a social worker and an administrator with an organization that provides food supplements to families that are suffering from malnutrition.

My involvement in promoting for access to biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) evolved naturally when I started my career. I have worked as a teacher, as an extension officer, and I continue to practice as a researcher and development worker as well as a part time farmer with my wife. We started farming because we wanted other farmers who were not exposed and were not knowledgeable to learn from us, in order to also do the same to improve their productivity.

As a conservationist and Geneticist I had learned about the evolution of breeding techniques and origin of domestications of plants and animals. I had also been trained in sustainable conservation and utilization of genetic resources for food and agriculture. I spent part of my life working in a genebank in the UK, which involved going out to the field and collecting plants for conservation and researching on them to benefit farmers and breeders.

When I returned to Uganda in January 2009, I decided to concentrate on my farm; however, that year there was a lot of drought. My tomatoes and Maize were completely lost, and my cassava was destroyed by cassava brown streak disease. We lost all our investments and in the same period my dad succumbed to cancer of the esophagus and passed on. I decided to seek employment first to earn a living, but most importantly I wanted a job that could help me develop new crop varieties in response to some of the challenges that I had faced as a farmer. That year, people in Uganda died due to lack of food from the drought; I thought God had failed my crops so I could help farmers.

I’ve been fortunate in that all my biotechnology and breeding work had been done under public institutions. We developed GM maize and Sorghum for drought tolerance and cassava for resistance to cassava brown streak disease resistance under National agricultural research Institutes. All the other biotechnological approaches that we used such as Marker Assisted Breeding, tissue culture, conservation biotechnology and gene mapping and isolation of genes were also under public institution. I have also developed non-GM sorghum lines for drought tolerance and striga resistance under my private organization, but the varieties are yet to be released.

While we were busy working on solving farmer’s problems, some people kept writing misinformation about GMOs and their promoters in newspapers. I also listen to misinformation on TVs and Radio talk shows. This is the time I decided that I should start providing first hand information on GMOs, since I was also developing them. I had an advantage in that I was not only developing GMOs but I was also using other approaches to solve farmer’s problems. I believe in integrated approaches and an approach that delivers a solution is acceptable to me.

One of my biggest challenges has been my fellow scientists who have chosen to ignore debating with anti-GMO activists. This has provided a platform for the anti-GMO activists to continue misinforming the public and denying farmers the technologies that they need most. I believe that unless we get out of the laboratories and talk to the population, our farmers will continue to suffer due to misinformation. Every field is using scientific innovation to advance and there should be no exception in plant breeding.


Clet Wandui Masiga

Conservation Biologist, Geneticist and Farm Entrepreneur.



By Peter Wamboga Mugirya

Ugandan President, Gen. Yoweri Museveni has blamed the failure of his country’s Parliament to pass the decade-old-National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill into law, on widespread ignorance among most legislators.

He says the ignorant MPs–largely elected from villages and remote rural areas–cannot fully appreciate the power of modern science of biotechnology.

This, the Ugandan Head of State explained, has led to the stalling of the Bill, yet it is aimed at providing a conducive regulatory regime for commercialization of GM-crops developed by the State-run National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO).
The Ugandan head of state was speaking at the World Food Day national event October 16, held at a NARO Tea research and development institute. It is located at Rwebitaba on the foothills of the beautiful Mountains of the Moon (Rwenzoris) in western Uganda.
He said most legislators — a majority of whom surprisingly belong to his ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) Party — cannot comprehend genetic engineering for being useful in imparting resistance to drought, resistance to virulent pests and diseases [challenges farmers are grappling with in crops]. “The MPs are from villages and do not understand such sophisticated science as biotechnology; that’so why they fear it,” said Museveni.
The President told the large gathering including representatives of the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP), that while Ugandan scientists have used biotechnology to develop a wide range of maize, cassava, banana, sorghum and millet varieties with good attributes of high yields, pests and disease-resistance, the Parliament has failed to provide an enabling law to regulate and release GM crops.

“We have been training such a large number of scientists and today they are able to develop and process anything…… First, the human resource in terms of scientists is there; secondly, the innovation fund is there but not yet enough to cover all scientists; thirdly improved seedlings and improved seeds I’m very happy, our scientists have developed them; today we have improved seeds for maize, millet, and for coffee. They even have used biotechnology to produce better seeds; but my MPs who need to modernise their thinking have failed to pass the biotechnology law; they have frustrated my scientists; you can hear them [scientists] expressing frustrations over there…….!” the largely jovial President said, amusing the audience and receiving applause from the scientists.

Tell people to stop spreading fear about biotechnology, he further said, adding that members of Parliament have refused to pass the Bill. they fear biotechnology for no good reason; but biotechnology is used to impart certain qualities; I don’t know what they fear; … for me I don’t think there’s no reason to fear!”

Speaking in the local dialect widely spoken in the area, the President said: …”The scientists used biotechnology to add something that imparts a special power to the seed; so the technology is good, useful and is available!

This open support for biotechnology is the first in a long time the Uganda leader has made publicly. However, he is a renowned strong supporter of science, technology and innovations.

He added that Ugandan scientists have solved many of the country’s problems, so we must pay them well to ensure they are stable and work harder.”Please my ministers and MPs, I need you to support my push to pay well our scientists. Some people have discouraged it, demanding that we democratise poor pay…. But for me I don’t mind if my pay is lower than that of our scientists, I’d be very happy if they earn much more than they do today,” he stressed.

It is not the first time the Uganda leader alluded to improving salary   payment and other emolments to scientists, to boost their morale, so as to sustain their momentum of hard work.

Earlier, the Agriculture Minister, Tress Bucyanayandi had reported that Uganda was food secure, save for a “few pockets of food insufficiency or shortages due to poor yields as a result of prolonged drought” in some parts of the country. He thanked FAO, WFP and Oxfam for supporting uganda’s agricuultural sector, via technical and financial assistance, in addition to providing guidance to farmer adaptation to climate change.


Report adapted from excerpts from the NBSTV live coverage of the event.

Thank you.

Improving sorghum productivity using innovative breeding approaches for African resource constrained farmers

By Clet Wandui Masiga, Conservation Biologist, Geneticist and Farm Entrepreneur
At the 2nd International Conference on Global Food Security 11-14 October 2015 | Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA  I will be presenting onImproving sorghum productivity using innovative breeding approaches for African resource constrained farmers.


Theme 6:  Technologies to  improve and  target  production 
Venue/Room: Room 423 – ILR  Conference  Center (KingShaw Hall) 
Date: Wednesday,14thOctober 2015
Time: 10:45‐11:05

Improving sorghum productivity using innovative breeding approaches for African resource constrained farmers

CletWandui Masiga1*, Nada BabikerHamza2, Damaris Odeny3, Tadesse Yohannes4, Steven Runo6, Rasha Ali7, Robert Olupot8,  , Yusuf B Byaruhanga10, Santie de Villiers11, Hai Chun Jing12, and Abdalla H.Mohamed13


1Tropical institute of development innovations (TRIDI), P O Box 493, Entebbe Uganda

2National Centre for Research, P.O.Box 2404, Khartoum, Sudan

3International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), PO Box 39063-00623 Nairobi, Kenya

4National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI), PO Box 4627 Asmara- Eritrea

6Biochemistry and Biotechnology Department, Kenyatta University, P.O Box 43844-00100 GPO, Nairobi, Kenya

7Agricultural Research Council (ARC), P.O. Box 126, Wad-Medani, Sudan

8National Semi-Arid Resources Research Institute, Serere/National Agricultural Research Organization

10Department of Food  Technology & Nutrition, College of Agricultural and Environmental  Sciences, Makerere University, P O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda

11Pwani University, PO Box 195-80108 Kilifi, Kenya

12Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan,  Beijing 100093, China

13International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT-Ethiopia Po.Box 5689, Adis Ababa Ethiopia



* Correspondingauthor. Email:;

Tel: +256 772 457155




Striga remains one of the key biotic constraints affecting cereal grain production in Africa, particularly in semi-arid areas.  The Striga weed parasitizes sorghum,maize, millet, teff, sugarcane, cowpea, and rice. The current solution for managing Striga is cultural, chemical orbiocontrol measures as well asusing resistant lines. Cultural measures include crop rotation, intercropping, trap-cropping and catch cropping. Chemical measures include fertilizers, herbicides and soil sanitation, while biocontrol measures include insects and fungus.  The resistant lines that have been developed and used by farmers frequently succumb again to infection probably due to attack by different ecotypes of Striga while the other management options have proven to be expensive and unaffordablefor most African farmers.  The option proposed now is to continue improving the current resistant and tolerant lines by introgressing a gene for Strigaimmunity that has been identified in wild sorghums. We will integratean array of biotechnological approaches to alleviate constraints due to drought and Striga parasitism in sorghum.  Marker assisted breeding was used to develop Striga and drought tolerant sorghum in Sudan and these lines have been adopted by the national agricultural research systems foradvance for commercial release in Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan and Eritrea. The lines were developed at the Agricultural Research Corporation of Sudan. In addition to advancing these lines, we are also using a transcriptional profiling approach to identify and validate gene products in Striga and sorghum that are essential for early post-penetration development and subsequent growth and differentiation of Striga on susceptible sorghum.  This process will accelerateStriga resistance gene identification and allow a better understanding of the molecular mechanism of Striga parasitism on sorghum.  We are also using transgenic approaches to impart tolerance to drought as well as the knowledge of marker assisted breeding, Striga phenotyping and genetics to obtain novel sources of Striga resistance and drought tolerance genes from wild relatives of sorghum by mapping advanced backcross populations derived from wild relatives of sorghum and farmer preferred sorghum varieties (FPSV). Finally, we are characterizing the nutritional and industrial technological properties of Striga resistant and drought tolerant varieties. This article details the methodologies being used to develop Striga resistant and drought tolerant sorghum lines for Africa.


Cultivated sweet potatoes are GMOs

By Clet Wandui Masiga, Conservation Biologists, Geneticist and Farm Entrepreneurs

The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes. This is an example of a naturally transgenic food crop. This conclusion was reported by Kyndt et al in May 2015 in a peer reviewed original research article published by PNAS.

The experiments conducted by this group found out that two different T-DNA regions of Agrobacterium rhizogenes and Agrobacterium tumefaciens  are present in the cultivated sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas [L.] Lam.) genome and that these foreign genes are expressed at detectable levels in different tissues of the sweet potato plant. The experiment involved 217 genotypes that included both cultivated and wild species.

Accordingly the researchers concluded that their findings indicate that sweet potato is naturally transgenic. Sweet potato being a widely and traditionally consumed food crop, could affect the current consumer distrust of the safety of transgenic food crops.

In the authors own statements they indicate the significance of the study as follows:
We communicate the rather remarkable observation that among 291 tested accessions of cultivated sweet potato, all contain one or more transfer DNA (T-DNA) sequences. These sequences, which are shown to be expressed in a cultivated sweet potato clone (“Huachano”) that was analyzed in detail, suggest that an Agrobacterium infection occurred in evolutionary times. One of the T-DNAs is apparently present in all cultivated sweet potato clones, but not in the crop’s closely related wild relatives, suggesting the T-DNA provided a trait or traits that were selected for during domestication. This finding draws attention to the importance of plant–microbe interactions, and given that this crop has been eaten for millennia, it may change the paradigm governing the “unnatural” status of transgenic crops.




It costs $136 million to discover, develop and commercialize a GMO

By Clet Wandui Masiga, Conservation Biologist, Geneticist and Farm Entrepreneur

It costs $136 million to discover, develop and commercialize GMOs having any specific trait. This cost represents money spent on staff, equipment and laboratory supplies, and   the regulatory testing and registration process. The time taken is about 13 years. Much of this time which is about 5.5 years is regulatory and registration.

Below is information I obtained at crop life website on October 201 (

Each year, millions of farmers around the world plant biotech crops for higher yields, improved crop quality and the ability to use sustainable farming practices such as no-till.  Getting these innovative new traits from the lab to their fields requires a tremendous investment – a new research survey reveals how it all adds up.

  • The cost of discovery, development and authorization of a new plant biotechnology trait introduced between 2008 and 2012 is US$136 million.
  • The time from the initiation of a discovery project to commercial launch is 13.1 years on average for all relevant crops.
  • The time associated with registration and regulatory affairs is increasing from a mean of 3.7 years for an event introduced before 2002, to the current (2011) estimated 5.5 years.
  • Regulatory science, registration and regulatory affairs account for the longest phase in product development, estimated at 36.7% of total time involved.
  • The trend in the number of units (candidate genes, constructs or genetic events) being screened in order to develop one trait is increasing.

From discovering new genetic traits, field testing and meeting intense regulatory requirements that ensure environmental and human safety, the overall plant biotech R&D process is costly and time-consuming. To determine the relative cost and duration of this process, Phillips McDougall conducted a research survey based on information provided by six of the industry’s largest biotech crop developers – BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Monsanto and Syngenta AG.

The September 2011 survey entitled, “The cost and time involved in the discovery, development and authorization of a new plant biotechnology derived trait”, focused on biotech traits in large scale commodity crops that had received cultivation approval in two countries and import approvals from at least five countries.

Key findings of the survey included:

Overall Cost

The cost of discovery, development and authorization of a new plant biotechnology trait introduced between 2008 and 2012 is US$136 million

Overall Time to Commercialization

The time from the initiation of a discovery project to commercial launch is 13.1 years on average. This does not include the time required to develop and obtain regulatory approval for stacked trait varieties which are the final product in most crops today.

Number of Years Required to Discover, Develop and Authorize a new Plant Biotech Trait (Mean Values)





All crops

Number of years from discovery of trait to first commercial sale







Duration of Each Activity Stage

The time associated with the R&D stage involving registration and regulatory affairs (Stage VII) is increasing from a mean of 44.5 months (3.7 years) for an event introduced before 2002, to the current estimate of 65.5 months (5.5 years). Because various activity stages overlap in real time, these totals do not reflect the actual duration of the overall R&D process described above.

Duration of Each Activity Stage in the Trait R&D Process (mean number of months)

Activity Stage

Duration for an event sold before 2002

Duration for an event introduced between 2008 and 2012

Duration to complete each stage in 2011

I Early Discovery




II Late Discovery




III Construct Optimization




IV Commercial Event Production & Selection




V Introgression Breeding & Wide-Area Testing




VI Regulatory Science




VII Registration & Regulatory Affairs




Total Cumulative Time




Number of Units Evaluated

The trend in the number of units (candidate genes, constructs or genetic events) being subjected to screening in order to develop one trait is increasing from a mean of 1,638 for an event introduced before 2002, to 6,204 for an event introduced between 2008 and 2012. The survey also demonstrated increasing efficiency by the industry with fewer events in the production & selection stage (Stage IV) for the events commercialized in 2008-2012 compared to events introduced before 2002.

Activity Stage

Event introduced before 2002

Event introduced between 2008-2012

I Early Discovery



II Late Discovery



III Construct Optimization



IV Commercial Event Production & Selection



V Introgression Breeding & Wide-Area Testing



VI Regulatory Science



VII Registration & Regulatory Affairs