GMOs: Who Do You Believe; Scientists Or Activists?

Dr. Rose Gidado.

The debate about the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to dominate public discourse, with activists being some of the most vocal opponents of its adoption. 

Globally, organisations like Greenpeace and Fairtrade International lead the opposition to GMOs, while groups such as Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), GMO-Free Nigeria Alliance and Organic Nigeria have been prominent in raising concerns in Nigeria.

These groups argue that GMOs pose health risks, environmental damage, and socio-economic challenges. They express fears about potential long-term effects on ecosystems and human health, citing concerns like the contamination of conventional crops and wild plants, harm to wildlife and uncertain health implications. The activists also criticise the dominance of large corporations in the GMO market, arguing that such monopolies can lead to dependence on external inputs, undermining local food systems and compromising farmers’ autonomy. Additionally, they contend that GMOs encourage industrial agriculture, exacerbating climate change, soil degradation and water pollution, rather than promoting sustainable farming practices.

While some of these arguments may seem valid, it’s important to highlight that GMOs are not developed or used in an ethical vacuum. In Nigeria and other countries where GMOs are in use, robust ethical and biosafety frameworks are established to address concerns relating to genetic modification, privacy issues in genetic testing, and equitable access to biotechnological innovations. Ironically, these systems are often ignored by those opposing the technology, as they prefer to vent their concerns through social media and the news.

This is in stark contrast to the rigorous scientific processes guiding GMO development. GMOs undergo a series of globally accepted scientific procedures before release. These include identifying and incorporating genes of target traits into host organisms, followed by laboratory tests and greenhouse trials to assess the genes’ performance in controlled conditions. The products are then tested in confined field trials to evaluate their environmental impact, after which multi-location trials assess adaptability and performance under different conditions.

On the regulatory side, developers must conduct risk assessments to evaluate potential human health and environmental impacts. They submit these assessments to Nigeria’s National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) for review. The NBMA’s evaluation determines whether a GMO is approved or rejected for environmental release.  

It’s important to note that Nigeria has the National Varietal Release Committee (NVRC), responsible for the registration, naming, and release of new crop varieties developed by research institutions, universities and the private sector. Every GMO released in Nigeria has undergone all these processes, which are transparently communicated to the public by the scientists and regulatory bodies involved.

Despite this, it is unfortunate that activists prefer to resort to social media and sympathetic news outlets to criticise GMOs. This amounts to an abuse of the freedom of expression that guides scientific debate. Moreover, many of those behind the criticisms are not scientists. The few scientists who do support the activists often lack adequate knowledge of biotechnology and have exploited the public’s limited understanding of genetic modification to push an agenda that undermines Nigeria’s agricultural growth.

For clarity, every GMO product released in Nigeria is regulated by the NBMA. The law requires that each GMO product be labeled and traceable, ensuring transparency and accountability. GMOs and their related activities are guided by the National Biosafety Management Agency Act, 2015; National Biosafety Guidelines, 2017 and GMO Regulation, 2017. Internationally, Nigeria adheres to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to which the country is a signatory.

Agencies such as the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), National Biotechnology Research and Development Agency (NBRDA), Nigerian Agricultural Seed Council (NASC), National Agricultural Quarantine Service (NAQS) and the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) are available for anyone seeking credible information on GMOs. Despite this, the activists continue to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of GMOs through social media and targeted misinformation campaigns.

The sustained criticism of GMOs in Nigeria and the harassment of the scientists behind this groundbreaking work, which has received global recognition, amounts to calculated mischief. The fear-mongering by anti-GMO crusaders appears designed to derail Nigeria’s efforts to ensure food security and agricultural sustainability.

While it is essential to protect the public from potential risks, allowing anti-scientific biases to dominate public consciousness only hampers progress. GMOs are not a silver bullet for solving hunger or food insecurity, but they can be a powerful tool in the broader effort to achieve these goals. Studies show that GMOs can increase crop yields, improve drought tolerance and enhance the nutritional content of crops—traits that are crucial in Nigeria’s quest for sustainable agricultural development.

While anti-GMO activists have raised concerns worth considering, it is important to approach the debate with an evidence-based perspective. The development of GMOs follows strict ethical and scientific standards, and their use holds significant potential to improve food security and agricultural resilience in Nigeria. The conversation around GMOs should, therefore, be grounded in facts, not fear. By dismissing the contributions of GMOs, we risk stalling agricultural innovation and ultimately, undermining our nation’s development goals.

Gidado is the director of the agricultural biotechnology department at NBRDA.