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.