Toward Harmonized Global Governance of GMOs: A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Fragmentation Across Kenya, the United States, and India

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) now play an important role in global agriculture, but the rules that govern how they are developed, traded, and controlled remain separated. Most countries follow two main international systems, the WTO's trade-focused framework and the Cartagena Protocol's precautionary biosafety approach. Because these systems do not fully align, governments often face unclear or conflicting expectations when they try to regulate GM technologies. This paper examines these weaknesses through three case studies: Kenya's reversal of a long GMO ban during a climate-driven food crisis, the United States' repeated contamination incidents involving GM and non-GM crops, and India's dependence on Bt cotton, along with hindered regulatory progress and export contamination cases. Three case studies show that ununified governance increases suspicion, creates ecological and economic risks, and slows down the potential benefits that GMOs could provide for climate adaptation and food security. The challenges identified in the cases, including gene flow, resistance, and cross-border contamination, are transnational and cannot be addressed effectively by individual countries acting alone. For the reasons above, this paper argues that a unified international biosafety institution is needed to set minimum standards, coordinate responses to contamination, and provide clearer expectations around coexistence and liability. Such an institution would not remove national control but would help create a more predictable and coordinated global system for GMO governance.

The case studies in this paper show that the main problem in GMO regulation is not whether countries use precaution or support trade. The real issue is that there is no unified system that governs the scientific and practical aspects of GMOs. Kenya's lifting its GMO ban during a severe drought, the United States' repeated contamination incidents, and India's pest control issues and slow approval times all demonstrate that gene flow and trait movement do not stop at the national borders. When countries follow different rules, the result is inconsistent policies and slow decision-making that does not keep up with advancements in biotechnology. The comparison between the WTO system and the Cartagena Protocol shows clear limitations. Each framework focuses on a different priority, and neither provides complete regulations on contamination, coexistence, or the movement of unapproved GM traits through trade. Because of this disparity, farmers, traders, and governments face more uncertainties. They also increase the risk of market disruptions and damage credibility. For these reasons, the paper argues that a consistent international biosafety institution is indeed needed. A global body with a clear mandate could help coordinate risk assessment, monitoring, and responses to contamination. It could also provide shared data, clearer standards, and more predictable expectations for liability. This would support innovative bio-tech advancements by giving countries and producers a more stable framework for GMO governance.