Business
FG’s approval of GMO fails to douse concerns over safety, risk factors
Last week, the controversy over the adoption of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, came to a head, as two government agencies openly disagreed on the usefulness, or otherwise, of this agriculture innovation. The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration Control, NAFDAC, and the National Biotechnology Agency fought openly over it, each accusing the other of being misguided.
January 11 will remain controversial milestones in the annals of agriculture policy and implications for agriculture ecosystems, farmers and agribusiness. It was the day the President Bola Tinubu administration officially approved genetically modified organism (GMO) seeds for use in the country’s agriculture despite stiff opposition from farmers, environmentalists, ethicists and experts.
For a decade or so, the struggle for adoption of GMO has polarized stakeholders along binary lines, with leading environmental groups, farmers and motley of experts arguing against adoption. On the other side of the trenches are government biotechnology agency, some experts and international vested interests in support of adoption, both sides remained intractable until government finally adopted the GMO technology.
Professor Moji Adeyeye, Director General of NAFDAC on Arise Television programme criticized the GMO, saying there were concerns over its suitability in Nigeria. She also raised issues of doubts over whether rigorous scientific and laboratory tests had been undertaken to ascertain safety risks and implications for human health. The NAFDAC boss, had argued that GMO foods in Nigeria are not safe for consumption due to insufficient research and data at their disposal.
“In terms of GMOs, we do not think it is safe. We don’t think it is safe for our consumption (that is the position of NAFDAC). Exactly! First, a lot of research has not been done in terms of the safety of GMO products and the genetics of the seeds have been modified. This is our position until we get very convincing data to show the safety for human consumption,” Mrs Adeyeye said.
However, the NAFDAC boss noted that GMOs could be used for non-food crops such as timber, furniture, and for rubber plantation, but maintained that there is no evidence from NAFDAC that it is safe for human consumption.
However, the Director General of the Nigeria Biotechnology Management Agency (NBMA), Dr. Agnes Asagbra, immediately kicked against the disapproval of genetically engineered food by the Director General of NAFDAC Professor Moji Adeyeye. In reaction to the NAFDAC official’s claims, Mrs Asagbra in a letter dated 2 July described the comments of the NAFDAC boss as one that can undermine the mandate and functions of the NBMA.
“The views you expressed appear to discredit the hard work and integrity of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) and its several renowned stakeholders and experts for which your Agency is one,” the letter partly reads.
Mrs Asagbra emphasised that the NBMA is a legally constituted Nigerian agency established to regulate the approval and safe use of all genetically modified organisms in the country.
Additionally, she said the organisation has the mandate to provide a regulatory framework, institutional and administrative mechanism for safety measures in the application of modern biotechnology and emerging modern biotechnologies in Nigeria with the view to preventing any adverse effects on human health, animal, plants, and the environment, as well as to put in place measures to ensure biosecurity.
“It is completely misleading for the Director General of NAFDAC to categorically state on National Television that GMOs are not safe, having admitted that her Agency has not carried out research, does not have the competency and, of course, does not have the mandate to carry out any study to determine GMOs’ safety.
“At NBMA, we strongly uphold and cherish inter-agency collaborations for effective biosafety management in Nigeria,” the letter reads.
“NBMA values this collaborative relationship with NAFDAC and other relevant regulatory agencies and stakeholders and has strived to maintain a partnership based on mutual respect and shared goals,” the letter noted.
The brickbats continued amidst experts weighing in to take different positions until a truce was reached, facilitated by government minister in charge of health, Dr, Tunji Alausa.
In a move to address public concerns after Adeyeye’s outbursts and the growing concerns of experts about Genetically Modified foods, the National Biosafety Management Agency and the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control in July pledged to strengthen their collaboration on food safety in Nigeria.
The joint meeting was convened by the Minister of State for Health, Dr. Tunji Alausa, and brought together the Director-General of NBMA, Dr. Agnes Asagbra, and the Director-General of NAFDAC, Prof. Mojisola Adeyeye.
According to a statement by the Ministry of Health via X, Alausa emphasised the need for consistent communication among government agencies.
“He said that there was need for a collaborative approach to properly address safety concerns related to GM foods, referencing extensive scientific evidence supporting their safety,” the statement said.
Also speaking, Asagbra highlighted the existing cooperation between the agencies.
“She confirmed that no GM food permits are issued without NAFDAC’s involvement, and stressed the agency’s commitment to all cooperative efforts to promote food safety,” the statement added.
Subsequently, Adeyeye clarified NAFDAC’s stance on GM foods, explaining that previous remarks had been taken out of context.
The statement said, “On her part, DG @NafdacAgency said that while previous remarks on GM foods had been quoted out of context, thorough scientific research and safety assessments remained a key requirement for approving GM foods. Prof Adeyeye reiterated
But many Nigerians believed the meeting was a mere window-dressing, as the concerns still persist.
The government’s decision to advocate for the use of GMO seeds despite strong opposition has sparked heated and engaging controversy and raised critical and ethical questions about the intersections of agriculture, policy and science. The current administration’s support for GMO marks a radical departure from traditional agricultural practices and has exacted a range of reactions from stakeholders.
Recall that there had been decades of opposition to GMO seeds and crops, but despite that, the Tinubu administration approved their use early this year. Some critics averred that by using GMO maize seedlings, the government has forced Nigerians into slavery, neocolonialism, disease, and poverty. Others see it as a positive, radical move in the direction of achieving national food security.
Some have vehemently argued that GMOs are not a cure-all for food insecurity and that the government should address insecurity and farmer/herder conflict as soon as possible so that farmers can farm freely and effectively. This is the position of Dr, Anjorin Abiodun, a retired professor of agronomy. ‘’The way forward is not GMO, which I see as neocolonialism that will eventually kill our age-long agricultural practices. With these GMO seeds you keep returning to them to buy year in year out. Have we really tested them rigorously to determine their safety? I doubt it; I think our leaders and agencies always buckle under Western pressure. It’s just like SAMOA loans, which are tied to things un-African’’, he told Business Hallmark.
Others spoken to towed the line of Abiodun. They claimed that GMOs are promoted under the guise of promoting food insecurity and that Nigeria’s food productivity and hunger challenges are primarily caused by conflicts, insecurity, poverty, inequalities, a lack of basic infrastructure, subsidies, power imbalances/power inequalities, a lax and watered-down regulatory framework, corporate interference in government policy, and inadequate extension services.
Experts like Abiodun harp on the belief that the true solution to Nigeria’s food security problem is to tackle headlong the root causes of poverty, inflation, insecurity, conflicts, and gender discrimination, emphasising that the cost of GMOs in terms of ecological damage, biodiversity loss, health, and economic implications far outweigh any apparent short-term benefits.
Dr, Mohammed Haruna, Director of Haruna Farms, Kontagora told this medium that ‘’government is not patriotic. This GMO is slavery; it is a method and tactic adopted by the West. They connived with degenerate leadership in Africa, including Nigeria, to kill our agriculture, sell their own seeds and impoverish our people. It’s unfortunate we don’t have enlightened leaders, who can read between the lines”.
Dr Victor Olumekun, Professor of Plant Science at Adekunle Ajasin University in Akungba Akoko, stated in his presentation on the ‘Contribution of Biotechnology and GMOs to Food Security in Nigeria,’ that the key issues are sustainable agriculture and food security, with biotechnology serving as a tool.
He stated that crop protection and improvement in Nigeria are due to environmental factors and that the country has an advantage over the rest of the world in some crops such as cowpea, cassava, and cocoa, whereas Malaysia and Indonesia have outperformed Nigeria in oil palm improvement.
According to him, maize is over-researched because the developed world refuses to abandon it, despite the obvious disadvantage of climate change and the crop’s importance to food security.
Despite justification, ordinary farmers are not convinced, as many have vowed to shun GMO seeds and stick to traditional seeds they have known over the years.
Debo Alebiosu, a farmer in Ifo, Ogun State told Business Hallmark that “nothing will bring me near GMO seeds. Instead, I will quit agriculture. I don’t know why our government always rushes to embrace anything the white people bring to us without considering the implications?’’
