Ethiopian researchers and civil-society advocates are calling for stronger biosafety regulations and independent scientific oversight as the country moves toward commercial distribution of genetically modified food crops.
They argue that while biotechnology may offer potential benefits, including drought tolerance and pest resistance, Ethiopia’s regulatory framework requires stronger implementation, transparent risk assessment and broader public participation to protect biodiversity, public health, farmers’ rights and national food sovereignty.
Solomon Kebede, Executive Director of MELCA-Ethiopia—a civil-society organisation working on food systems, biodiversity and biosafety—said genetic modification should not be rejected automatically. However, he argued that the technology must be subject to more rigorous evaluation and meaningful safeguards.
“We are not absolute opponents of genetic modification,” Solomon told Capital. “But if it is to be implemented, it must have deep, participatory and robust safeguard and compensation frameworks.”
“The question is whether genetic modification creates negative impacts on human life, the environment, natural resources, social conditions, biodiversity and national sovereignty,” he added.
MELCA-Ethiopia has been involved in biosafety and biodiversity debates for years. The organisation has supported the registration of three of Ethiopia’s six UNESCO biosphere reserves—Sheka Forest, Majang and Anywaa—and has worked on biodiversity conservation and policy advocacy.
Ethiopia’s biosafety framework is based on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which the country signed in 2000 and ratified in 2003. Ethiopia’s original Biosafety Proclamation No. 655/2009 established the country’s basic regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms.
The law was amended through Proclamation No. 896/2015, which made it easier to regulate confined use, field trials and environmental release of modern biotechnology products while retaining biosafety requirements. The amendment also provided for the creation of a National Biosafety Advisory Committee.
Under the current arrangement, the Environmental Protection Authority is the national body responsible for biosafety matters. The National Biosafety Advisory Committee, established under Council of Ministers Regulation No. 411/2017, advises the government on biosafety issues.
Recent rules have also addressed new technologies, including genome-edited plants and stacked seed varieties. However, Solomon, who said he helped draft the Ethiopian Biosafety Administration Project and coordinated work during the preparation of the proclamation and technical guidelines, argued that implementation has not kept pace with the regulatory framework.
“The legal frameworks exist, but they are not properly implemented,” he said. “Emerging technologies face complex and risk-averse approval processes, while at the same time we lack the capacity to conduct truly independent risk assessments.”
The debate has intensified following Ethiopia’s approval of TELA maize, a genetically engineered maize variety designed to withstand drought and resist major insect pests.
In February 2025, Ethiopia’s National Variety Release Committee approved the commercial release of three TELA maize hybrids for food and feed use. The varieties were developed under a public-private partnership involving the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, Bayer, the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research and other partners.
The approved maize uses stacked genetic traits. MON 87460 is intended to improve drought tolerance through enhanced water-use efficiency, while Bt traits are designed to protect the crop against stem borers and fall armyworm. Sources differ on the specific Bt event identified in the approved lines, with reports referring to MON 810 and MON 89034.
TELA project partners say the technology is licensed royalty-free for participating countries. The project states that local seed companies will be able to produce and sell the hybrids at prevailing market prices without an additional technology royalty being charged to farmers.
However, critics remain concerned about farmers’ long-term dependence on commercial seed systems. Solomon said Ethiopia must closely examine what GM maize could replace and whether its adoption could affect farmers’ ability to save, exchange and replant seed.
“Maize has been a centuries-old strategic food-security crop in Ethiopia,” he said. “When we introduce transgenic maize, what will it replace? Farmers must buy seed every year, and these seeds may require chemical inputs. This can make food security dependent on external sources.”
Reports on the commercial rollout indicate that farmers using the GM variety will need to buy new seed each planting season rather than replanting harvested seed.
Critics are also concerned that patented biotechnology could eventually affect other strategic Ethiopian crops.
A semi-dwarf teff variety developed using CRISPR-Cas9 technology has been researched as a possible solution to lodging, a problem in which plants fall over before harvest. Lodging is estimated to cause significant yield losses in teff production.
Solomon said similar concerns apply to coffee, Ethiopia’s leading export commodity and a major source of foreign currency. Research into biotechnology approaches for resistance to Coffee Berry Disease has raised questions among critics about how intellectual-property rights could affect national control over key crops.
“Look at coffee,” Solomon said. “If we genetically modify our coffee—the backbone of the Ethiopian economy and our primary export market—it could fall under patent control. Imagine the macroeconomic impact of that.”
He also warned against framing food security solely in terms of producing larger quantities of a few staple crops.
“We have a concept of nutritional security that requires consuming diverse foods,” he said. “Replacing our diverse crops—teff, potatoes and vegetables—with a few improved staple crops could affect food diversity.”
Critics argue that Ethiopia’s traditional food systems, based on diverse grains, pulses, vegetables and local seed varieties, provide nutritional value, cultural continuity and resilience against climate shocks. They caution that a narrow focus on maize and wheat production could weaken this diversity.
A legal dispute has emerged over which government institution should regulate biosafety issues. Civil-society organisations have raised concerns about the proposed Plant Protection and Quarantine Bill, which they say could shift certain responsibilities relating to the importation of genetically modified materials and environmental risks associated with exotic species.
Environmental authorities have reportedly warned that reassigning responsibilities to the Ethiopian Agriculture Authority could create legal inconsistencies with Ethiopia’s existing biosafety framework and commitments under the Cartagena Protocol.
MELCA-Ethiopia and other advocates argue that the country should invest more heavily in agroecology, public research and locally developed technologies. They support farming systems that prioritise organic fertilisers, biodiversity conservation, community-led governance and farmers’ rights to use and adapt seed.
“For a long time, we have argued that agroecology and respect for natural ecosystems must be given priority,” Solomon said.
“Our research institutions, extension systems and universities are mostly skewed toward Western science models,” he added. “But a true food system is much broader than production and productivity. It includes the economy, culture, livelihoods, income, health and the macroeconomy.”
Solomon called for greater investment in public technologies developed by Ethiopian universities and research institutions, particularly those that do not bind farmers to foreign patents.
“We must secure our seed sovereignty and nutritional sovereignty ourselves,” he said. “When introducing these systems, we must ask: Does this violate farmers’ rights? Does it affect access and benefit-sharing? Have we destroyed our macroeconomic foundation?”
