Biosafety Authority welcomes court’s dismissal of application for injunction over approval of 14 GMOs

The National Biosafety Authority (NBA) says the Human Rights Tribunal’s decision on Tuesday to dismiss an application seeking an interlocutory injunction on the approval of 14 genetically modified organism (GMO) products is a victory for science.

In February, the Authority approved eight GM corn events and six soybean events to allow two biotechnology companies, Bayer West-Central Africa and Syngenta South Africa, to import these crops into the country.

The approval is for GMOs to be imported for use as feed, food and processing, and not for local cultivation.

They include pest-resistant corn, glyphosate-tolerant corn, drought-tolerant corn, pest-resistant soybeans, glyphosate-resistant soybeans, herbicide-resistant soybeans, pest-resistant soybeans, and low-fatty acid and high-oleic acid soybeans. Some of the crops had a combination of two or more different traits.

A lawsuit filed on April 10 asked the court for an interlocutory order restraining the authority and three others from releasing the 14 GMOs into Ghana’s ecosystem until a substantial case against the GMOs dating back to 2015 is determined.

Food Sovereignty Ghana, the Ghana Vegetarian Association and Goaso Kanyan Akuafo Kuo argued that issues related to the latest approval are at the heart of the lawsuit they filed in 2015, parts of which have traveled to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and return to the Human Rights Court. Court of Rights.

The groups are seeking a declaration that the National Biosafety Committee that preceded the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) was wrong to give the green light for the start of work on the development of genetically modified cowpeas and rice in Ghana in 2011.

“It is significant that although the present lawsuit (2015) refers specifically to GM cowpeas and rice, it addresses critical issues regarding GM such as public awareness, public education, labeling, and general compliance with domestic rules and regulations. and international biosecurity in the area of ​​transgenics. “Key judicial determinations are pending and the same is emerging in recent GMO products intended to be released into the Ghanaian ecosystem,” the affidavit said.

The groups said the latest approval would render meaningless any judicial determination on the 2015 case still pending before the court and urged it not to allow the Biosafety Authority and others “to get away with such blatant disregard for the courts.”

They said the approval amounts to a “gross disrespect for the legal process” and “to allow the same would be a grave disrespect to the legal inquiry herein and a slap in the face to justice and fairness in a judicial inquiry.”

They asked the court to intervene and limit the NBA, the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, until the 2015 case is finally resolved on May 24, 2024.

But the court presided over by Judge Barbara Tetteh-Charway, in dismissing the request on Tuesday, said the NBA was simply fulfilling its legal duty when it approved the 14 GMOs.

He said the injunction request could have been avoided if the plaintiffs had simply sought information from the NBA about what it had done.

A statement from the NBA said the court recognized the NBA’s diligence in executing its legal mandate to ensure the safety and regulatory compliance of genetically modified crops within Ghana’s agricultural sector.

The NBA statement adds that the ruling marks an important milestone for players in the biotechnology and agricultural innovation space and affirms that functional science-based biosafety systems are important to expand producers’ options, inspire consumer confidence, facilitate trade and promote agricultural research and development.

The authority said it remains committed to ensuring the safety of modern biotechnology in Ghana as well as continued engagement with stakeholders in a transparent manner.

The applicants say that although they disagree with the ruling, they will not do anything about it. They say they look forward to the final ruling on the underlying case next month.

DISCLAIMER: The views, comments, opinions, contributions and statements made by readers and contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.