We don’t need genome editing to ensure Africa’s food sovereignty_fin
WE DON’T NEED GENOME EDITING TO ENSURE AFRICA’S FOOD SOVEREIGNTY
WILL STRINGENT REGULATION
SAFEGUARD AFRICA’S FOOD SYSTEMS?
AUGUST 2025
The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is committed to dismantling inequalities and resisting corporate industrial expansion in Africa’s food and agriculture systems.
African Centre for Biodiversity www.acbio.org.za
PO Box 29170, Melville 2109, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Tel: +27 (0)11 486-1156
Researched and written by Stefanie Swanepoel
Editorial oversight and input by ACB executive director Mariam Mayet Design and layout: Xealos Design Consultancy
Acknowledgments
The ACB gratefully acknowledges the financial support of several donors, though the views expressed may not necessarily reflect the views of our donors.
Acronyms
AATF African Agricultural Technology Foundation
ACB African Centre for Biodiversity
AU African Union
AUDA-NEPAD African Union Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa’s Development
BMGF Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
GM Genetically modified
GMOs Genetically modified organisms
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
KALRO Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation
NBA [Kenya’s] National Biosafety Authority
NBMA [Nigeria’s] National Biosafety Management Agency
NBTs New breeding techniques
OFABS Open Forums on Agricultural Biotechnology
UCC University of Cape Coast, Ghana
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
About this briefing paper
There is a growing move in Africa to deregulate geneediting technologies and their products and treat these the same as conventionally bred varieties, as a result of successful lobbying by agrochemical and biotechnology companies.
A number of African countries have already defined their positions. Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, and Malawi have all introduced guidelines that exclude genomeedited crop plants from their respective national biosafety legislation unless foreign DNA is detectable in the final product. The Kingdom of Eswatini, Ethiopia, and Burkina Faso appear poised to adopt similar rules.
South Africa, where almost 3 million hectares of genetically modified (GM) crops are being commercially cultivated, in contrast, has chosen a more precautionary approach to regulate both the technology and the final living product within its Genetically Modified Organisms Act.
This briefing provides an update, particularly on the African Centre for Biodiversity’s (ACB’s) 2024 paper, Deregulation of genome editing and products must be overturned in Africa –why stringent regulation is imperative, 1 on the status of gene-editing regulation on the continent, and the risks to Africa’s food sovereignty emanating from these technologies and products, from the impacts on farmers’ seed rights and biodiversity impacts to the issue of corporate control of plant genetic material. The stakes are indeed very high – and they affect us all.
We also delve into issues concerning the need for robust, transparent, and enforceable regulation in the context of the right to know, transparency, risk assessment, and good governance.
Coordinated push to promote genome editing in Africa
There has been a concerted effort on the African continent to align national policies, attract investment, and accelerate regulatory approval for gene-edited crops, alongside gaining public and policymaker acceptance of this technology.
Influencing regional and national policymaking
The African Union (AU)’s stance on gene editing is shaped by the flawed and one-dimensional view that novel technologies will boost crop yields, incomes, and jobs, thereby solving food insecurity and poverty on the continent. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) promotes investment in research and new breeding techniques (NBTs) like gene editing as a solution to the continent’s so-called agricultural crisis (Akinbo et al., 2025).
7 In 2022, the AU released its Policy Framework for Applications of Genome Editing in African Agriculture, in which its African Union Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD) High-Level Panel for Emerging Technologies (APET) (AUDA-NEPAD APET, 2022) urges African states to:
• Recognise genome editing as a rapidly advancing toolset with bioeconomic potential in agriculture, healthcare, and other sectors.
• Strengthen national capacity of authorities and reviewers to assess risks and benefits and make informed policy decisions.
• Apply the precautionary principle through case-by-case, scientifically sound risk assessments that include Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC)’s perspectives.
• Ensure science-informed policymaking for genome-edited products.
• Clarify legal and policy frameworks by developing national guidelines on whether genome editing falls under biosafety laws.
• Develop clear regulatory guidance to identify genome-edited products that may be excluded from biosafety law, using pre-submission consultations and product-based criteria. Apply biosafety regulations only to genome-edited products containing foreign genetic material in the final product. Regulate only those organisms with stable, permanent integration of foreign genetic material under biosafety laws during development and release.
• Exclude from biosafety regulation any genome-edited organisms without foreign DNA and with traits achievable through conventional breeding or found in nature and regulate them under existing laws for conventional products.
In 2023, the AUDA-NEPAD convened policymakers from 11 countries to explore harmonised regulatory approaches to genome editing (ACB, 2024). To date, to the best of our knowledge, seven countries (Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Malawi, and South Africa) have already adopted geneediting guidelines, with Ethiopia having developed draft Guidelines.
A range of institutions, such as Teaching and Research in Natural Sciences for Development in Africa (TReND), the Foundation of National Institutes for Health, and the GeneConvene Global Collaborative, among others, hold gene-editing training sessions across African countries to enhance policymakers’ understanding of the technology (Kitenge et al., 2025).
Alongside this, governments are being urged to provide tax incentives, develop enabling regulatory frameworks, and meet their commitment to spend at least 1% of GDP on research – particularly on genome editing and public-private partnerships (ACB, 2024).
Shaping public opinion
AUDA-NEPAD has partnered with eight countries – Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Burkina Faso – to develop communication strategies that support acceptance of gene editing. The African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) launched the African Coalition for Communicating about Genome Editing in 2021 at the Africa Biennial Biosciences Communication Symposium to promote public engagement. This continental coalition feeds into the Open Forums on Agricultural Biotechnology (OFABs) at the country levels. OFABS have been established in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Malawi, and Rwanda (AATF, 2025). Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) (AATF, 2025), these spaces aim to build public acceptance and shift policymakers’ perceptions on gene-edited and transgenic crops. To date, 391 journalists have been trained to report on agricultural biotechnology and its benefits (AATF, 2025). An annual media awards ceremony in each country stimulates favourable coverage of biotechnology.
The Genome Editing Technologies Initiative, led by the Network of African Science Academies and Africa Harvest, has engaged champions (gene editing experts and advocates) to shape perceptions of the technology in Africa (NASAC, 2025). In 2021, a working group comprising 19 ‘champions’ (the African Association of Genome Editing Professionals for Sustainable Agriculture) was established to shift policymaker perceptions to enable favourable regulations for gene editing commercialisation; to facilitate stakeholder dialogue for public acceptance of the technology; and to strengthen the champions’ expertise in science communication and advocacy (NASAC, 2025). The working group now has 26 members across 25 African countries and has developed policy briefs and hosted 20 regional webinars with more than 700 participants (NASAC, 2025).
AUDA-NEPAD launched a communications and advocacy campaign for gene editing in 2024. The campaign focused on a webinar workshop series for young scientists and on integrating gene editing learning needs to promote inclusion in curricula of institutions of higher learning (Kitenge et al. 2025).
Training scientists
There is a concerted effort to train scientists in gene-editing technology.
The African Plant Breeding Academy (AFPBA) is affiliated with the University of California’s Davis Plant Breeding Academy (UC Davis PBA, 2023). It operates in partnership with the African Orphan Crops Consortium and AUDA-NEPAD, and has been operating on the continent since 2013 (UC Davis PBA, 2023). By 2023, it had trained 151 scientists from 28 countries to use genetic engineering techniques (UC Davis PBA 2023). It is also collaborating with the Innovative Genomics Institute and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) to train scientists in gene editing approaches (UC Davis PBA 2023). Crops focused on in this initiative include finger millet, rice, sorghum, soybean, tomato, ginger, and maize (Akinbo et al., 2025).
In 2023, the AFPBA ran a CRISPR training course for scientists from Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Morocco, Nigeria, and Sudan. Hosted by the IITA in Kenya, the programme is funded at US$1.6 million per year by Bayer, Syngenta, the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research, and the venture arm of the Mohammed VI Polytechnic University in Morocco (ACB, 2024). It gives African scientists access to gene sequences from 100-odd so-called orphan crops to accelerate research.
9
Centres of excellence are used to promote research and training in biotechnology (Kitenge et al., 2025). These centres include the Kenyatta University Plant Transformation Laboratory in Kenya, licenced to carry out research in genetic transformation, and the Institute of Bio and Emerging Technologies in Ethiopia (Runo et al., 2024). The International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology is establishing an advanced research facility at Egerton University in Kenya, which will serve as a regional research hub for its African member states (Runo et al., 2024). In addition, programmes such as the East African Regional Progamme and Research Network for Biotechnology, Biosafety and Biotechnology Policy development are training masters and doctoral students in biosafety, agricultural biotechnology and molecular biology –strengthening capacity in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia (Kitenge et al., 2025).
PlantGENE, an international network of scientists focused on genetic transformation, is funded by the United States National Science Foundation and has a special focus on enhancing gene-editing capacity in Africa (Runo et al., 2024).
Driving development through public-private partnerships
Several high-profile public-private partnerships (PPPs) are fuelling genome editing research across Africa. In 2022, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) AfriCenter partnered with Kenyatta University and Addis Ababa University to launch the Feed the Future Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa project. Backed by nearly US$3.8 million from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Feed the Future, the project uses CRISPR to develop sorghum varieties resistant to Striga weed. Activities have included a 2023 value chain and stakeholder mapping workshop held in Addis Ababa to prepare for commercialisation pathways (AfriCentre, 2023) and a 2024 science communication and regulatory workshop in Nairobi, which included journalism training and field study visits to trial sites in western Kenya (AfriCentre, 2024a).
USAID’s January 2025 funding freeze disrupted agricultural research worldwide, including several African initiatives. While the Feed the Future Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa project hasn’t been directly named, trials (of conventionally bred crops) in Ethiopia, Niger, and Senegal were affected. These included sorghum and millet research led by Kansas State University, as well as peanut variety trials in Malawi coordinated by the University of Georgia. The freeze halted payments to local workers, ceased data collection, and led to layoffs of United Statesbased and African staff. A temporary court injunction has since allowed some work to resume, but long-term uncertainty remains.
The IITA and the Swedish University of Agricultural Science have partnered with national institutions in Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda to advance gene-ed iting capacity in these countries (Rabuma, Moronto-Barrios & Craig, 2024). The Genome Editing Initiative Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa, has also formed partnerships to facilitate implementation of genome editing programmes and encourage pub lic-private engagements (Akinbo et al., 2025).
In March 2025, AATF and BioHeuris signed a two-year partnership to develop and commercialise genome-edited crops in Africa, starting with herbicide-toler ant sorghum (AATF, 2025b). The collaboration covers trials, regulatory approvals, and farmer uptake. It will also explore other crops in the BioHeuris portfolio, such as rice and wheat, with traits relevant to African farmers (AATF, 2025b). BioHeuris will lead product development and identify partners to support the rollout.
Gene-edited crops in development
Although few gene-edited crops are on the global mar ket—and none yet in Africa—a growing number are in development. Target crops include:
• Bananas – engineered for disease resistance, delayed ripening, altered size (dwarf varieties), and nutrient enhancement.
• Cassava – edited for disease resistance and synchronised flowering.
• Maize – modified for herbicide tolerance and biofortified grain.
• Sorghum – targeted for resistance to Striga and improved nutritional content.
• Wheat – edited for disease resistance and increased yields.
• Yams – being engineered for drought tolerance and resistance to pests and disease.
Processes underway in labs, fields, and boardrooms across Africa cannot be left to private interests alone. Public institutions, civil society, and farmers have a right to know—and a responsibility to act. Transparent, participatory, and precautionary regulation is the only way to ensure that decisions made today do not undermine food sovereignty, biodiversity, or democratic governance tomorrow.
Policy frameworks for gene editing in Africa
An effective and appropriate policy framework for gene editing in Africa must address issues of biosafety, intellectual property rights – who benefits from them and who is disadvantaged by them – and public acceptance; it must be based on the guidelines of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Akinbo et al., 2025). Table 1 provides an update on the status of the regulation of gene editing in Africa.
Table 1: Status and type of genome editing regulatory frameworks in Africa 2025
Nigeria December 2020: Nigeria introduced official guidelines on gene editing through its National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA).
South Africa Gene editing guidelines since 2024.
Burkina Faso
Established regulations and guidelines in 2023.
Kenya February 2022: Kenya published national guidelines via the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) for genome editing oversight.
Nigeria uses a case-by-case system to decide how to regulate gene-edited products. If the final product contains a new combination of genetic material or recombinant DNA (like a nuclease gene), it will be treated as a genetically modified organism (GMO) and regulated accordingly. But if the final product does not contain recombinant DNA, or if it has been removed, the product is not treated as a GMO and simply requires a clearance permit (Spring, Wilhelm & Hartung, 2022).
All NBTs and live products undergo the same risk assessment processes as transgenic GMOs.
Guidelines outline which organisms and products are regulated and which are exempt; treated as conventional varieties. Organisms are exempted if they meet two criteria: the final product contains no foreign genes and does not combine genes from incompatible species.
Kenya’s Guidelines for Genome Editing include an expedited early consultation process, requiring applicants to submit an Early Consultation Form to the NBA with details on their methods and products. This applies to all genome-edited organisms intended for research, release, trade, or transit. Each case is assessed individually based on whether transgenic material is involved (NBA-Kenya, 2022). If classified as a GMO, the applicant must follow the standard GMO application process. If determined to be non-GMO, it will be exempt from biosafety legislation but monitoring for unintended effects is still required.
Ghana Established regulations and guidelines in 2023.
Product not process based, in that if the final product does not contain transgenes it is not classified as a GMO and exempt from biosafety legislation.
Malawi Established guidelines in 2022. In 2022, Malawi implemented Genome Editing Guidelines that provide a structured, product-based framework for regulation and follows a similar de-regulation approach.
Ethiopia Established draft regulations and guidelines in 2025.
Source: Akinbo et al., 2025
Product not process based, in that if the final product does not contain transgenes it is not classified as a GMO.
Countries in process of adopting gene editing regulatory frameworks
Burkina Faso: Validated its draft genome editing framework and is preparing to finalise (Sprink, Wilhelm & Hartung, 2024).
Kingdom of Eswatini: Actively reviewing its Biosafety Act to incorporate genome editing.
Mozambique:
Zambia:
Preparing to develop a regulatory framework for genome editing after the third biotechnology workshop, held in mid-2024, organised by IITA with the University of California-Davis and AUDA-NEPAD (Lusvardi, 2024). The Biosafety Working Group is also drafting a communications strategy to encourage adoption of the technology (Lusvardi, 2024).
Preparing to develop a regulatory framework after a biotechnology workshop held in May 2024, organised by IITA with the University of California-Davis and AUDA-NEPAD, as well as AfriCenter, intended to support this development.
Emerging regulatory distinctions regarding genome editing in Africa
Product vs process-based evaluation: While GMO regulation often focuses on the process used to alter genetic material (e.g., transgenesis), many countries are shifting toward product-based evaluation for genome editing. If the final product contains no foreign DNA and mimics changes that could occur naturally or through conventional breeding, it may be exempted from GMO classification.
Case-by-case assessment:
Authorities such as Kenya’s NBA and Nigeria’s NBMA require early consultation or notification for genome-edited products. Regulatory decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether foreign genetic material is introduced and whether genes from incompatible species are combined.
Expedited review processes: In countries such as Kenya and Burkina Faso, specific guidelines for genome editing enable expedited regulatory review. Products determined to be non-GMO are subject to lighter regulatory oversight, such as clearance permits.
Exemption criteria: In Burkina Faso, for example, genome-edited organisms are exempt from GMO regulation if (1) no foreign genes are present in the final product, and (2) gene combinations do not involve incompatible species. Similar principles are applied in Kenya and Nigeria, for instance, to determine whether genome-edited organisms fall under full biosafety regulation.
Monitoring obligations: Even when a product is classified as non-GMO, some authorities require ongoing monitoring to assess potential unintended effects, particularly in field trials.
Update on gene-editing projects underway in Africa
Burkina Faso
The 2023 Guidelines outline which organisms and products are regulated and which are exempt, and treated the same as conventional varieties. Organisms are exempted if they meet two criteria: the final product contains no foreign genes and does not combine genes from incompatible species.
Rice was edited to be resistant to bacterial blight, undertaken by the country’s national research institution, Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (USDA, 2021).
Approval was given for field testing in 2024 (Akinbo, 2025).
Ethiopia
In May 2025, Ethiopia’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) released its “Guidelines on Regulation of Genome Edited Products”, adopting a product-based approach where regulatory oversight depends on the presence of transgenes in the final product (Africa Science Dialogue, 2025). The full guidelines are not yet public, but the framework is expected to fast-track field trials in Ethiopia.
Approved for confined trials
Teff edited to resist lodging (when stems buckle under heavy grain), undertaken by the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (US) in partnership with the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) and Corteva Agrisciences, which forms part of the Genome Editing in Teff for Uplifting Productivity (GET-UP) initiative (Innovative Genomics, 2022). In 2024, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) cleared the genome-edited teff as not subject to biotechnology regulation under its SECURE Rule (Danforth Center, 2023), enabling multi-year field trials to begin in the US. The BMGF awards a US$4.9 million grant to the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center and the EIAR to refine gene-edited teff varieties in greenhouses and diverse field sites, and to train Ethiopian scientists in transformation and editing techniques (FertilizerDaily, 2024). In 2025, Ethiopian scientists received advanced training in the US on gene editing, teff transformation, and trait evaluation to support knowledge transfer (Danforth Center, 2025). Current status: Awaiting approval for field trials.
Ethiopian mustard was edited for enhanced oil quality, undertaken by Addis Ababa University’s Institute of Biotechnology. There is significant industrial potential for this mustard, given its ability to act as a biofuel. Current status: In laboratory testing.
Striga-resistant sorghum, see the Kenya section for more details on this. Current status: In field trials in Kenya
Ghana
Ghana published Guidelines for Genome Editing Applications in Ghana under the Biosafety Act in 2023. It follows a product-based approach with exemption from regulation for final products not containing transgenes (National Biosafety Authority, 2023).
Gene-edited sweet potato for increased beta carotene, undertaken by lead scientist Samuel Acheampong, who began the project in Ghana for his PhD at the Borlaug Higher Education for Agricultural Research and Development in the US. A study was done at the University of Cape Coast (UCC), aiming to increase beta-carotene in sweet potatoes and optimise sugar flow to enlarge storage roots and improve yields (Gakpo, 2021). The National Biosafety Authority stopped the UCC project in 2024 as it had not followed the proper process in gaining permission, and the university did not have the requisite equipment (Oduro, 2024). At the time of writing, UCC has not applied for a permit to continue this work. Current status: Not approved.
This is the only publicly documented gene-editing project listed in Ghana.
Kenya
Kenya published national guidelines on gene editing via the NBA in 2022. It is product, not process, based, in that if the final product does not contain transgenes, it is not classified as a GMO and is therefore exempt from the Biosafety Act requirement (Akinbo et al., 2025).
In field trials
Striga-resistant sorghum, undertaken by Kenyatta University. Exempted from biosafety regulations, approved for contained research in 2023, and field trials took place at the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO) in western Kenya in 2024 (AfriCentre, 2024b). In field trials.
Approved
for confined trials
Maize lethal necrosis resistance, undertaken by KALRO, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) (Mexico), and Corteva Agriscience (technology provider), the Seed Trade Association of Kenya, and USDA – with core funding from the BMGF (CIMMYT, 2025).
Approved for contained research in 2022. The intention is to release commercial seeds to 20,000 smallholder farmers by 2025 (Amoah et al., 2024). The seeds will be available royalty-free with licensing agreements restricting companies from charging smallholder farmers higher seed costs (CIMMYT, 2025). Current status: There is no publicly available information to indicate that field trials are being undertaken, although this is hinted at in news reports.
Nitrogen-fixing bacteria (bio fertiliser) used as a seed treatment for cereal crops, undertaken by Agtech Consulting Limited (Kenya Tribune, 2024). Regulatory approval has been granted for contained trials. Note, though, that Agtech is not a biotechnology company but a consultancy that provides international companies wanting to enter markets with studies, advice, public tender representation, and product representation, according to its website (Agtech Consulting, 2025). It is not clear from public records who it is fronting for, but it lists ThinkBio as a key partner on its website. ThinkBio is an Australian company specialising in “the research, development and commercialisation of biological inoculants for agriculture” (Agtech Consulting, 2025:1). Current status: In laboratory testing.
Herbicide-resistant sorghum, undertaken by Kenyatta University (Kenya Tribune, 2024).
Approved for contained research in 2023. A partnership between AATF and BioHeuris (biotech company), signed in January 2025, will focus on enabling field trials and commercialising gene-edited herbicide-resistant sorghum as well as identifying and developing other genomeedited crops with traits relevant to African farmers (Muthie, 2025). Current status: In laboratory testing
Virus-resistant and biofortified banana, undertaken by Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)-led research. This is part of the Roots, Tubers, and Bananas Breeding Project that collaborates with national agricultural research systems and universities in East, Central, and southern Africa. Proof of concept was published in 2025 (Tripathi et al., 2025).
Current status: No field trials approved or initiated yet
Drought-tolerant maize, undertaken by VIB-Ugent Centre for Plant Systems Biology in partnership with Kenyatta University (Rock et al., 2023).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s NBMA (2015), amended in 2019, and the National Guideline on Genome Editing (validated December 2020) allows case-by-case regulation of genome-edited products. Gene edits without foreign DNA may qualify for non-GMO regulatory classification, requiring a Clearance Permit (Akinbo, 2025). Current status: In field trials
Approved for confined trials
Cassava – edited for bacterial blight disease, undertaken by the National Root Crops Research Institute (NCRI) in Nigeria in partnership with the BMGF (funder) and National Science Foundation (Rock et al., 2023), as well as the Danforth Center. Current status: In field trials
South Africa
According to the Registrar: GMO Act, there were no pipeline projects in the offing in South Africa as of June 2025.
Uganda
The National Biosafety Committee is in the process of finalising separate guidelines for gene editing; currently, gene-edited products are regulated the same as GM products (Rabuna, Moronta-Barrios & Craig, 2024).
Gene-edited cassava for resistance to brown streak disease, undertaken by the IITA and conducted by the National Crops Research Institute (Genetic Literacy Project, 2023). Current status: This project is still in the laboratory testing stage.
Gene-edited cassava for timing of flowering to support crossbreeding, undertaken by Uganda’s National Agricultural Research Organization, funded by the Donald Danforth Plant Science Centre in the United States (AfriCentre, 2022). Current status: Still in the proof-ofconcept stage, with target genes identified and editing protocols established.
Key funders and institutional supporters of genome editing in African agriculture
• Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF): One of the most prominent funders of genome editing research in Africa. Projects such as gene-edited cassava, banana, and cowpea often receive BMGF funding through international partnerships. BMGF positions genome editing as a more precise, faster alternative to conventional breeding and transgenic GMOs.
• Danforth Plant Science Center: This non-profit company actively promotes gene editing as a solution to crop productivity. It is part of many international collaborations and partnerships focused on developing pest- and disease-resistant staple African crops, often working with African national research institutions. It is funded through grants, endowments, and contracts. The BMGF has been its frequent funder since 2008; in 2022, it provided US$7.5 million to test, deregulate, and make available engineered cassava varieties (Gates Foundation, 2022); in 2024, it provided US$4.9 million for gene editing of teff in Ethiopia (Danforth Centre, 2024a). Also in 2024, the Danforth Centre, in collaboration with Uganda’s National Agricultural Research Organisation and international universities, partnered with the Bill and Melinda Gates Agricultural Innovations to create pest-resistant cassava (Danforth Centre, 2024b). The Gates Ag One programme focuses on seven African countries: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda in Africa (Gates Ag One, 2025). The programme intends to “use patient capital and convening power” to accelerate “promising science” related to crop productivity and climate adaptation (Gates AG One, 2025:1).
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): USDA supports genome editing through both research and regulatory cooperation. USDA is a co-funder or collaborator in maize, cocoa, and cassava editing projects involving African partners, often alongside US research institutions and biotech companies. From publicly available information, it appears that US funding cuts to Africa affect mostly health-related programmes; it is unclear the extent to which cuts affect research and development of gene-editing technology.
• United States Agency for International Development (USAID): USAID promotes agricultural biotechnology, including genome editing. Through programmes like Feed the Future, it backs research partnerships and regulatory capacity building. USAID often funds biosafety training, institutional development, and communication strategies in African countries.
• Corteva Agriscience: A leading multinational agribusiness, Corteva is both a developer and advocate of genome editing tools, especially CRISPR. It collaborates with public sector institutions in countries like Kenya to develop genome-edited maize. Corteva frames gene editing as a key solution for crop disease resistance and climate adaptation.
• Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (e.g., CIMMYT, IITA, International Livestock Research Institute [ILRI]): CGIAR centres play a central role in developing genome-edited crops, often with donor support. The IITA leads cassava and banana editing projects; CIMMYT focuses on maize.
• African Union Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD): It supports policy harmonisation and biosafety capacity building across the continent. While it presents itself as neutral, it promotes enabling environments for NBTs, including genome editing, aligning with donor agendas and private sector engagement.
• National governments and regulatory bodies: Nigeria’s NBMA, Kenya’s NBA, Burkina Faso’s Agence Nationale de Biosécurité (ANB), among others, are increasingly differentiating genome editing from GMOs and creating fast-track or case-by-case approval pathways.
• Universities and public research institutions: Makerere University (Uganda), University of Ghana, University of Nairobi, West African Centre for Crop Improvement (WACCI), and others see genome editing as a means to build scientific capacity, attract research funding, and contribute to national development goals. They often highlight the potential of genome editing to address local crop challenges more efficiently.
Public and civil society objections to genome editing in African agriculture
• Lack of transparency and public participation: The development and regulation of genomeedited crops is taking place without meaningful public consultation. Decisions are often made by technical committees without broader societal debate or farmer input.
• Corporate control and seed sovereignty: We are concerned that genome editing, like transgenic GMOs, reinforces corporate dominance over seed systems. Even when edited crops are developed by public research institutions, there are valid fears that patents, plant breeders’ rights, licensing arrangements, and dependency on external technologies will undermine farmers’ seed rights, sovereignty, and local innovation. Genome editing also allows companies to conceal manufacturing methods and safety data under ‘trade secrets”. This secrecy enables broad, loosely defined patents and potential ‘patent stacking’ strategies, extending corporate monopoly long after initial patents expire.
• Regulatory loopholes and weak oversight: Treating some genome-edited organisms as “non-GMO” opens a regulatory back door that allows risky technologies onto the market with no risk assessment and insufficient scrutiny. This erodes hard-won biosafety protections, especially in countries with limited regulatory capacity. Reliable public information on the status of gene-editing projects is also hard to come by.
• Risks to biodiversity and agroecology: Genome editing perpetuates an industrial model of agriculture that threatens seed diversity, soil health, and agroecological practices. Introducing uniform, genetically edited varieties may reduce resilience and undermine traditional knowledge systems.
• Uncertainty and unintended effects: Despite claims of precision, genome editing may produce off-target effects or unpredictable outcomes. Africa must adopt a precautionary approach, insisting on long-term, independent safety studies before field trials or commercial release.
• Distraction from real solutions: Genome editing is a techno-fix that diverts attention and resources from more urgent, proven solutions to food insecurity, such as agroecology, farmermanaged seed systems, and structural policy reform.
Analysis
Regulatory approaches to genome editing have taken root in seven of the 54 countries in Africa: Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Malawi, and South Africa have adopted gene-editing guidelines since 2020. Most of these, with the exception of South Africa, follow a product-based approach, exempting gene-edited products from stringent GMO regulation if no foreign DNA is present in the final product.
Field trials remain extremely limited with minimal movement towards commercialisation; the pipeline of gene-edited crops remains thin, and there is no evidence of readiness for large-scale commercial cultivation and farmer adoption. Gene editing remains in the lab, and not in the hands of farmers. There is a huge disconnect between promise and delivery.
The countries quickest to regulate (Nigeria and Kenya) are not leading in implementation; Ethiopia, establishing regulations in 2025, appears more active in moving field trials forward.
Public-private partnerships dominate but are heavily reliant on foreign funding. Key funders include USDA, USAID, Corteva, and BMGF. USAID funding cuts could disrupt these partnerships, which bears further investigation. Gene-editing in Africa is largely donor- and corporate-driven, which undermines local seed sovereignty and autonomy.
Significant effort is going into the management of perceptions of this technology, rather than tangible outcomes. Communications hubs have been launched in at least 10 countries, with hundreds of journalists trained, media awards established, and networks created. Communication efforts are well funded and coordinated, but they are not backed by equally visible benefits or transparency.
Conclusion
The rise of gene editing technologies presents serious risks for Africa’s agricultural future. While powerful funders and institutions champion genome editing as a silver bullet for food security and economic growth, the reality is far more complex. Africa does not need genome editing. The growing push to deregulate genome editing under the guise of innovation threatens to sideline public interest in favour of corporate profit and monopoly control through intellectual property regimes. However, without stringent, transparent, and participatory regulation, gene-edited crops risk being introduced without adequate oversight, compromising farmers’ rights, biodiversity, and food sovereignty.
AATF. 2025a. The Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB). https://www.aatf-africa.org/the-open-forum-onagricultural-biotechnology-in-africa-ofab/ AATF. 2025b. Press Release: AATF and BioHeuris partner to boost productivity with genome-edited crops in Africa.https://www. aatf-africa.org/aatf-bioheuris-partner-to-boost-productivity-with-genome-edited-crops-in-africa/? Africa Science Dialogue. 2025. Ethiopia publishes Guidelines on Regulation of Genome Edited Products. Ethiopia publishes Guidelines on Regulation of Genome Edited Products | ISAAA - AFRICENTER
AfriCentre. 2023. Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa Project Maps out Ethiopia’s Sorghum Value Chain Actors AfriCentre. 2024a. Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa project holds science communication workshop for stakeholders. https:// africenter.isaaa.org/striga-smart-sorghum-africa-project-holds-science-communication-workshop-stakeholders/ AfriCentre. 2024b. Finding the Sweet-Spot for Safe, Responsible, and Sustainable Ag. Biotech – Product Stewardship for Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa. https://africenter.isaaa.org/finding-sweet-spot-safe-responsible-sustainable-ag-biotech-productstewardship-striga-smart-sorghum-africa
Agtech Consulting. 2024. Who we are. https://agtech.consulting/who-we-are Akinbo et al. 2025. Africa and zero hunger agenda: genome editing policy landscape, challenges and opportunities. https:// www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1526851/full?
Amoah, P., Mahamane, A.O., Byiringiro, M.H. et al. 2024. Genome editing in Sub-Saharan Africa: a game-changing strategy for climate change mitigation and sustainable agriculture. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2024.2411 767
CIMMYT. 2025. MLN Gene Editing Projecthttps://www.cimmyt.org/projects/mln-gene-editing-project/ Danforth Center. 2023. Leaflet Fall 2023. DDPSC-Leaflet_Fall-2023_Web.pdf
Danforth Center. 2025. Building Capacity: Advancing Training to Improve Teff Productivity. https://campaign.danforthcenter. org/2025/04/building-capacity-advanced-training-to-improve-tef-productivity/ Danforth Centre. 2024a. Danforth Centre and Ethiopia’s Ag Research Giant receive $4.9 million grant. https://www. danforthcenter.org/news/danforth-center-and-ethiopias-ag-research-giant-receive-49m-dollar-grant/ Danforth Centre. 2024b. International partnership unites to combat cassava whitefly and protect African crops. https:// www.danforthcenter.org/news/international-partnership-unites-to-combat-cassava-whitefly-and-protect-africancrops/?highlight=africa
Fertilizer Daily. 2024. Danforth Center and Ethiopian Institute receive teff development grant. https://www.fertilizerdaily. com/20250729-cf-industries-names-former-nutrien-executive-to-lead-manufacturing/ Gakpo, J.O. 2021. Ghana scientist turns to gene editing to improve sweet potato crop. https://allianceforscience.org/ blog/2021/02/ghana-scientist-turns-to-gene-editing-to-improve-sweet-potato-crop/ Gates AG One. 2025. Plant biology as a natural solution. https://www.gatesagone.org/what-we-do/ Gates Foundation, 2022. Donald Danforth Plant Science Centre. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committedgrants/2022/08/inv043210?
https://africenter.isaaa.org/striga-smart-sorghum-africa-project-maps-ethiopias-sorghum-value-chain-actors/ ISAAA. 2022. Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa project launched in Kenya and Ethiopia. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/ cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=19960
Kenya Tribune. 2024. Genome editing, game changer for healthier and better harvests. https://www.kenyatribune.com/genomeediting-game-changer-for-healthier-and-better-harvests/ Kitenge, S., Nkhabindze, B., Ratemo, B., Dada, S. et al. 2025. The role of young scientists in promoting genome editing for sustainable agriculture and food systems in Africa.https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/ articles/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1530800/full?
Lusvardi, C. 2024. New genome editing research framework for Mozambique. https://www.seedtoday.com/article/1013666/ new-genome-editing-research-framework-for-mozambique?
Muthie, J. 2025. AATF and BioHeuris partner to boost production of genome-edited crops in Africa. https://www.aatf-africa.org/ aatf-bioheuris-partner-to-boost-productivity-with-genome-edited-crops-in-africa/ NASAC. 2025. Gene editing technology. https://nasaconline.org/programmes/gene-editing-technology-initiative-geti/ National Biosafety Authority. 2023. Guidelines for Genome Editing Applications in Ghana. Guidelines-for-Genome-EditingApplications-in-Ghana.pdf
Oduro, E. 2024. NBA stops UCC from developing orange flesh sweet potato. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nba-stops-uccfrom-developing-orange-flesh-sweet-potato-oduro-ele8f/
Rabuma, T., Moronta-Barrios, F. & Craig, W. 2024. Navigating biosafety regulatory frameworks for genetic engineering in Africa: a focus on genome editing and gene drive technologies. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-andbiotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1483279/full?
Rabuna, T., Moronta-Barrios, F. & Craig, W. 2024. Navigating biosafety regulatory frameworks for genetic engineering in Africa: a focus on genome editing and gene drive technologies. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11540646/
Runo, S., Karmbu, M., Nan’gayo, F., Mekbib, F. et al. 2024. Africanizing genome editing for food sustainability. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912424000476?
Spring, T., Wilhelm, R. & Hartung, F. 2022. Genome editing around the globe: An update on policies and perceptions. Plant Physiol. 2022 Aug 17;190(3):1579–1587. doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiac359
Tripathi, L., Ntui, V.O., Muiruri, S., Shah, T. & Tripathi, J.N. 2025. Loss of function of MusaPUB genes in banana can provide enhanced resistance to bacterial wilt disease. Communications Biology 8:708. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-02508093-w
UC Davis Plant Breeding Academy. 2023. PBA in Africa. https://pba.ucdavis.edu/pba-africa. USDA. 2021. Biotechnology and other new production technologies. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/ DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Biotechnology+and+Other+New+Production+Technologies+Annual_Dakar_ Senegal_10-20-2020.pdf.
