In Kenya’s coastal counties of Lamu and Kwale, where the Indian Ocean breeze meets smallholder farms and quiet fishing villages, the conversation about genetically modified organisms is not taking place in sterile boardrooms or academic conferences. It is happening under acacia trees, in community halls, on dusty roadside paths, and even along the beach, where farmers, traders, and local leaders are trying to understand a technology that has been both praised as an answer to hunger and feared as a threat to health, culture, and the environment. In late September, the National Biosafety Authority, or NBA, arrived in these communities with a clear mission: to replace misinformation with facts, fear with understanding, and silence with dialogue. The Authority’s top officials, Board Chairperson David Wamatsi and Acting Chief Executive Officer Dr. Ann Karimi, led a series of face-to-face engagements with farmers, county officials, and residents. Their goal was not to deliver lectures or hand out pamphlets and leave. Instead, they wanted to sit with people, listen to their worries, and explain what the NBA actually does when it comes to regulating genetically modified organisms. In a country where GMO debates have often been dominated by political rhetoric, social media rumors, and unverified claims, the NBA has chosen to invest in something far older and more human: direct conversation. The coastal outreach is part of a wider national awareness campaign, one that officials say will continue in other counties in the months ahead. For the people of Lamu and Kwale, the arrival of the regulators was a rare chance to ask the questions that mattered most to them. Are GMO foods safe to eat? What happens to local seed varieties? Who is watching the scientists and companies that want to bring new technologies into Kenya? By the end of the meetings, many participants still had questions, but they also had something they had lacked before: a clearer idea of who to ask and how the regulatory system works. That, according to the NBA, is the first step toward building a genuinely biosafe nation.
The National Biosafety Authority is not a cheerleader for GMOs. In fact, its officials said many times and in many ways that the Authority takes no position for or against the technology itself. Its role is regulatory, not promotional. The NBA exists to supervise and control the transfer, handling, and use of genetically modified organisms in Kenya, covering everything from research and environmental release to commercialisation and related activities. And all of that work is guided by one overriding priority: protecting human and animal health while preserving the environment. This mandate may sound abstract in a policy document, but on the ground it translates into a series of critical questions that the Authority must answer before any GMO product can be imported, planted, or sold. What risks does this organism pose to people who consume it? Could it harm local biodiversity? What safeguards are in place to prevent unintended consequences? These are not simple questions, and the NBA does not take them lightly. Decisions are not made based on popular opinion or political pressure. They are made through a rigorous assessment process, grounded in science and evidence. During the Lamu and Kwale engagements, Wamatsi and Karimi worked hard to explain this process in plain, everyday language. Wamatsi told farmers that the Authority’s job is to ensure that any GMO activity in Kenya is carried out safely, and that the public deserves a better understanding of the institution that is supposed to protect them. Karimi added that the NBA does not force anyone to adopt GMOs. It does not tell farmers they must plant genetically modified seeds, and it does not tell consumers they must buy GMO foods. What it does offer is reliable, science-based information, so that individuals and communities can make their own informed choices. In the noisy, polarized GMO debate, this is a crucial distinction. The Authority is not a promoter or a defender of the technology. It is a gatekeeper, an evaluator, and a source of transparent regulatory information.
In Lamu, the NBA’s campaign brought together a wide cross-section of the community: farmers who grow maize and beans, herders, women’s groups, youth leaders, and county officials. For many, the meetings were a rare opportunity to confront regulators with the questions that had been circulating on social media and in village markets for months. Deputy Governor Mubarak Mohamed endorsed the initiative and urged the country to remain open to technological developments. He pointed out that biotechnology has potential uses that extend far beyond food crops, including applications in medicine and disease control, and he argued that Kenya cannot afford to close its doors to innovation simply out of fear. At the same time, he acknowledged that any new technology must come with robust safeguards and trusted oversight. The NBA team also paid a courtesy call on Lamu County Commissioner Stephen Shogolo to brief him on the awareness campaign and its broader goals, ensuring that county leadership would be able to support future outreach efforts. But the engagement was not limited to official offices. In Mpeketoni, a farming area where land ownership and agriculture are central to local daily life, the Authority held a separate sensitisation programme specifically for farmers. There, the message was simple and direct: do not rely on unverified claims, do not trust every alarming story you hear, and do not dismiss science just because it is complex. Karimi explained that GMO technologies are subjected to thorough regulatory scrutiny before any approval is given, and she encouraged farmers to seek information from authoritative sources, including the NBA itself. The atmosphere at these sessions was not confrontational. People listened carefully. They asked practical questions about yields, seed costs, market access, and the risk of losing traditional seed varieties. Older farmers, in particular, voiced deep concerns about cultural practices and the potential for biological innovation to undermine local agricultural heritage. The NBA’s response was not to dismiss these concerns as backward or uninformed. Instead, officials acknowledged the worries as legitimate and walked people through the checks and balances that are built into Kenya’s regulatory system.
In Kwale County, the campaign took a more dramatic and symbolic form. On a Saturday morning, more than 330 people gathered at Mwabungo and set off on a ten-kilometre community walk that ended at Kinondo Social Hall. The event was called “Walking for a Biosafe Nation,” and it was deliberately designed to make biosafety visible, physical, and accessible to ordinary people. The route passed through Galu Beach, and the early-morning sea breeze turned what might have been a formal government outreach event into something closer to a village festival. Groups of participants formed and reformed along the way. Young students walked beside government scientists, asking what the abbreviation GMO really meant. Farmers shared stories of drought, failed harvests, and their hopes for more resilient crops. Some participants were already convinced that biotechnology had a role to play in Kenya’s future. Others were deeply skeptical. But they all walked together, and that was exactly the point. The walk began at seven in the morning and ended just after nine, but the conversation did not stop at the finish line. Inside Kinondo Social Hall, officials took the crowd through the mandate of the NBA, explaining how the Authority assesses GMO risks and why its work matters for food security and environmental protection. Msambweni Deputy County Commissioner Josphat Mutisya flagged off the walk and called on the NBA to extend similar awareness activities to every part of the country. He said that community engagement is the only reliable way to bridge the gap between regulatory institutions and the people they are meant to serve. Karimi again emphasized the Authority’s neutral position, repeating that every decision the NBA makes is guided by science, evidence, and the legal framework. She did not ask anyone in the room to support GMOs. What she asked was simpler but also more ambitious: that people understand the oversight that exists, that they ask questions, and that they participate in the conversation with accurate information.
The urgency of the NBA’s campaign is rooted in a public conversation that remains sharply divided. According to a 2026 study, perceptions of GMOs in Kenya continue to split along many lines, and significant gaps persist in awareness not only about the technology itself but also about the institutions that regulate it. Many Kenyans have heard the acronym GMO, but far fewer fully understand what genetically modified organisms actually are, how they are developed, or what safety assessments they must undergo before they reach the market. This knowledge gap creates fertile ground for misinformation. Social media posts, political speeches, and even religious sermons have sometimes shaped public opinion more powerfully than scientific findings. The NBA’s strategic plan for 2023–2027 identifies public awareness, stakeholder engagement, and evidence-based decision-making as central pillars of its work. This is a significant shift for a body that has traditionally been seen as a purely technical regulator. It signals that the NBA understands that regulation cannot succeed in a vacuum; the people must understand and trust the system. Over the past years, the Authority has organized county-level forums, developed educational materials, and worked with local leaders to spread accurate information. But officials admit that more needs to be done. In a country where many rural communities have limited internet access, and where complex scientific information is often poorly translated or misunderstood, there is no replacement for human presence. The 2026 study’s findings are not entirely discouraging. They show that when people receive credible, accessible information, they often become more willing to engage with complex technologies and weigh their potential benefits. But credibility cannot be asserted from a distance. Regulators must go where the people are. They must listen to fears without dismissing them, answer uncomfortable questions, and accept that not everyone will be convinced. The NBA’s approach in Lamu and Kwale embodies this understanding. It is not running a public relations campaign with catchy slogans. It is attempting to build a foundation of trust through repeated, honest, and humble interactions.
The debate over GMOs in Kenya is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. It is a debate about science, but it is also a debate about sovereignty, culture, economic power, and the health of both the people and the land. The National Biosafety Authority does not claim to have all the answers, and it does not ask the public to surrender its doubts. What it asks is that the conversation be based on facts rather than fear, and that all Kenyans have access to the information they need to participate in democratic decision-making. The recent engagements in Lamu and Kwale represent a promising model for how a regulatory body can engage with the public: by being present, by listening, and by explaining rather than defending. As Kenya continues to weigh the role of biotechnology in agriculture, food security, and environmental protection, the need for reliable, science-based information has never been more urgent. Climate change is making farming harder, food prices are rising, and the population continues to grow. Some Kenyans see GMOs as one important tool among many to meet these challenges. Others remain skeptical, pointing to ethical dilemmas, international experiences, and the unknown long-term effects of altering living organisms. The NBA’s task is not to resolve that dispute. Its task is to ensure that whatever decisions are made, they are guided by sound regulation, rigorous science, and a transparent understanding of both risks and benefits. The awareness campaign, therefore, is not a one-time event. It is an ongoing commitment to walk the country, literally and metaphorically, until biosafety becomes a shared national conversation rather than a whispered rumor. The story of the NBA in Lamu and Kwale is about more than GMOs. It is about the relationship between institutions and the communities they serve. When a farmer can stand in a meeting and ask a regulator directly whether a crop is safe, confidence in democracy grows. When a walker on a beach can discuss biotechnology with a scientist without drowning in jargon, science becomes part of everyday life. That kind of progress is hard to measure in harvests or hectares, but it is essential. The road to a biosafe nation is long, but Kenya has begun to walk it.