Genetically Modified crops and food security in Nigeria

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS AND FOOD SECURITY IN NIGERIA
By Alex Abutu, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

Genetically modified (GM) foods have since their
introduction in the global market in the 1990s been
fraught with controversies.

The controversies have centred on human and
environmental safety, ethica and consumer choice.
Other contending issues include food security,
labelling, intellectual property rights and poverty
reduction.

The most common modified foods are derived from
plants such as soya beans, corn, cotton seed oil
and wheat.

These are foodstuffs produced from genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) that have had their
DNA altered through genetic engineering.

In spite of the controversies, experts say what is
important is how to sufficiently regulate GMOs to
optimise their benefits while safeguarding against
risks.

The Church of Scotland notes in a publication that
the long-term impacts of GM crops are not yet
known.

''The massive use of transgenic crops poses
substantial potential risks from an ecological point of
view,'' it says.

The publication also says that the ecological
effects of GM crops are not limited to pest
resistance and creation of new weeds or virus
strains alone.

The Church says that no one can really predict the
long-term impacts that will result from such massive
deployment of the crops.

Lancet, an international medical journal,
corroborates the views of the Church of Scotland.
It says that the repeated use of transgenic crops in
an area may result in cumulative effects, including
the build-up of toxins in soils.

It, however, says that enough research has not been
done to evaluate the environmental and health risks

of transgenic crops.

Also, Anne Peterman, Co-Director, Global Justice
Ecology, says that ''Genetically engineered trees
threaten to contaminate native forests around the
world with unnatural and destructive traits.''

According to her, such trees can kill insects and
reduce lignin, the substance that enables a tree to
withstand diseases.

Peterman is the leader of North American Focal
Point for Global Forest Coalition.

The release of genetically engineered trees into
forests, she says, is capable of devastating wildlife,
bio-diversity and forest-dependent communities.

Nigeria's moves to introduce GM crops into the
country, therefore, arouses concern.

This is against the backdrop of the apprehension
expressed by experts and other stakeholders on the
subject.

The question on the lips of observers is: how can
Nigeria adequately regulate and control a
technology which some industrialised countries of
Europe have refused to accept?

Analysts say that Nigeria lacks the requisite
legislation and facilities to practice the technology.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Egypt and Malawi
have enacted legislation that provide the legal and
institutional framework for governing genetically
modified crops.

Field trials and release of genetically modified
maize have been done in Kenya and South Africa.

However, the products of the research are mostly
used as animal feeds.

Nigeria signed and ratified the Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety in 1992.

The Protocol allows Nigeria to share in global
knowledge and best practice initiatives on bio-safety
technology.

The Protocol also sets out international rules and
mechanisms for ensuring safety in the handling,
transport, use and release of genetically modified
organisms.

Environment and Housing Development Minister
Halima Tayo-Alao expresses government's concern
on the issue.

She says there is need for Nigeria to develop
policies and laws to regulate modern bio-technology
in a more robust and encompassing manner.

The ministry, she says, has engaged the assistance
of line ministries, agencies and the UN Environment
Programme (UNEP) in developing a National Bio-
safety Framework.

Tayo-Alao says that the framework will soon be
forwarded to the Federal Executive Council.
It will incorporate a regulatory regime such as
notification, information transfer and review, risk
assessment, socio-economic impact and ethical
considerations.

It will also contain specific provisions on monitoring
and enforcement, transportation and trans-boundary
movement and testing, release and disposal of GM
products.

The minister says that Nigeria is prepared to take
advantage of the potentials of biotechnology to
address food security, healthcare delivery and
environmental protection.

But the minister agrees and alludes to fears
expressed by experts on the potential risk of GM
crops.

''The potential benefits, not withstanding, there are
indications that the products of modern
biotechnology could have adverse effects on
human health and biological diversity as well as the
environment,'' she says.

Dr Wallace Udoh, of Advocacy Group for Safe
Biotechnology in Nigeria (AGSB), says the
uncertainties and controversies surrounding
biotechnology in agricultural development and food
security are not confined to Africa alone.

He says there is an urgent need for well-informed
stakeholders to engage in positive dialogue that will
generate consensus among them over the existing
uncertainties and controversies about
biotechnology.

Udoh says that the advent of genetic engineering in
agriculture had clearly changed the content and
nature of the debate on how to respond to food
insecurity.

According to him, the technology tends to portray
biotechnology as the panacea to combat food
insecurity in Africa.

But is Nigeria prepared to analyse and handle the
risks associated with biotechnology?

Prof. Yusuf Abubakar, Executive Secretary, National
Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria, says
Nigeria must first introduce a competent regulatory
system before developing and introducing
genetically modified crops into the country.

''The need of having an active regulatory system is
basic and not optional if we are to fully deploy GM
crop technologies in Nigeria.

''The tendency is that if we close our doors to GM
crops, we may eventually find them trooping in
through the back door.

''Introducing transgenics require a cost-effective
and transparent regulatory system with expertise
and competence to manage their release and use,''
he advises.

Abubakar wants the scientific human capacity to
adequately handle research and development of
GM crops in the country to be strengthened through
training and retraining.

But Science and Technology Minister, Grace
Ekpiwhre, notes that in spite of the controversies,
biotechnology has the potential to tame hunger in
Africa.

Ekpiwhre's argument is based on the fact that
Africa's par capita food production had declined
over the last two decades.

''Yields of staple crops fell by an average eight per
cent on the continent compared to an increase of 27
per cent in Asia and 12 per cent in Latin America,''
she says.

The consistent decline in food production, the
minister says, has made it imperative for the
continent to seek effective ways of fast-tracking
food production processes.

''Biotechnology is one of those new ways.

''The potency of transgenic crop technology for
increased productivity, nutrition, crop resistance to
pests and drought is no more questionable,'' she
says.

Ekpiwhre says that the introduction of genetically
modified crops into Nigeria will support
government's food security programme.

Prof. Bamidele Solomon, Director-General, National
Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA),
agrees, saying his agency is working on a modality
for domestication of GM crops.

''This is in order to increase crop harvest per unit
area on farmer fields in Nigeria,'' he points outs.
According to him, NABDA will develop modalities to
utilise national, regional and international biosafety
structures to facilitate the introduction of GM crops
into Nigeria.

Agreeing that a lot of controversies have trailed the
idea of introducing biotechnology, he says: ''but it is
important that we take a decision''.

''Nigeria needs to make a statement to the world on
where it stands on biotechnology,'' he says.

Analysts say it is appropriate for Nigeria to carefully
consider the cost-benefit implications of
biotechnology.

They say this is necessary to evaluate its risks
before unleashing a technology that can endanger
the lives of the present and future generations.

** If used, please credit the writer