Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in layman’s parlance, are organism that have been tweaked, albeit, in a “good way.” Genetic modification, also known as “genetic engineering” is the technologically advanced way of selecting desirable traits in organisms. Modern biotechnology has been able to directly modify the genome of organisms, most especially crops in order to make them better, more resistant to droughts, pests and crop disease thereby producing more yield. GMOs are not a new phenomenon as farmers have been planting GMO crops since mid-1990s.
Changes to genes aren’t necessarily a bad thing as it occurs naturally in nature. Organisms evolve. Genes are bits of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) responsible for characteristics and traits in living things; useful traits since time immemorial have helped plants and animals survive over time and they get passed along and eventually become common.
Man sped up this process when he picked the cream of the crop plants to grow the next season and paired picks of the litter in animals to breed “new and improved” babies. Scientists have gone a notch higher by altering the DNA of seeds with radiation or chemicals and then choose which resulting plants to breed or taking a gene from a plant, virus and putting it into another to transfer a desired feature.
These more precise and targeted adjustments are often referred to as genetic engineering. Some GMOs are specially made to be packed with extra vitamins, minerals and other health benefits.
Those in support of GMOs have touted some benefits to the process, some of which are that population growth will necessitate the need for more food production, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates food production will need to double in some parts of the world by 2050 and this translates to need for more land for cultivation which will not be readily available, the introduction of GMO crops are a way to make enough nutritious food available with limited land, water and other resources.
Genetically modified crops are more efficient and therefore use less agricultural inputs to produce the same amount of food. From 1996-2012, without GM crops the world would have needed 123 million more hectares of land for equal crop production. GM technology reduced pesticide use by 8.9% in the period from 1996- 2011; because genetically modified crops require less ploughing and chemical usage, GM technology can reduce fossil fuel and CO2 emissions; additionally, scientists are developing GM crops that are resistant to flood, drought, and cold, which improves agricultural resistance to climate change.
On fears of GMO food changing human genes, bacteria-fighting enzymes and processes in your body are designed to prevent a genetic invasion. As a report from the American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health explains, if an outside germ somehow survived digestion and got into your gut bacteria, it would have to be enough like your own DNA, in just the right place at just the right time, to glom onto one of your genes and change it. But a major case for concern would be people’s reaction to allergenicity.
Most especially in a situation where the transplanted genome is from a seed that is known to have widespread cases of allergy in humans, for instance, nuts. For example, a soybean enriched with a protein from a Brazil nut wasn’t brought to market, even as animal feed, because tests showed that it might trigger a reaction for people with an allergy to those nuts.
The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on direct health effects (toxicity), potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties, the stability of the inserted gene, nutritional effects associated with genetic modification and any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.
GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the FAO/World Health Organization intergovernmental body responsible for developing standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex Alimentarius, which means the international food code.
Codex developed principles for the human health risk analysis of GM foods in 2003 and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods. Nigeria is on the verge of this technological advancement and there have been opposition from different quarters about the safety of the use of GMOs.
Most importantly, the uproar came as a result of the approval for field testing by the agency saddled with the regulation of GMOs in the country, the National Biosafety Management Agency’s (NBMA) issuance of two permits for the commercial release and placing on market of genetically modified cotton and confined field trial of maize to Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Limited.
The NBMA was established in 2015, under the Federal Ministry of Environment was charged to, among others, ensure proper regulation of modern biotechnological activities and genetically modified organisms so as to protect the lives of Nigerians. The NBMA has been faulted on the approval of the glysophate herbicide resistant maize despite the International Agency for Research on Cancer report that linked the active ingredient glyphosate to cancer.
This concern, which was dismissed by the applicant, had been raised by a scientific panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stating that this particular ARMG should be restricted to field trial purposes and should not be present in GM plants to be placed on the market
In the objection to Monsanto’s applications, the concerned Nigerians stated in its application MON 15985, that Monsanto was using genes referred to as cry2Ab2 and cry1Ac, which produce Bt toxins that have been synthetically manufactured with no history of safe use in nature.
It was also said that NBMA approved Monsanto’s proposal for BT cotton at a time Burkina Faso was announcing its goal to phase out the use of genetically modified cotton by 2018 as it yielded shorter fibers and lesser sales.
Countries like Sri Lanka has banned Monsanto’s “Round up” herbicide because of its link to kidney disease, and putting into consideration the low level use of protective gears by rural farmers, it puts the farmer and other members of the community at risk.
On May 26, 2016, a St. Louis jury ordered Monsanto to pay $46.5million in damages for negligence in the production of polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. Three of nearly 100 plaintiffs claimed that their exposure to PCBs caused cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The suit claimed Monsanto gave false public information on the safety of PCBs. Further damaging evidences pile up against indicted Monsanto: A trial in Redlands, California in May 2016 on the dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup reveals that “it is not only glyphosate that is dangerous, but also chemicals listed as inert ingredients.”
A high court in Paris had punished a high ranking official representing Monsanto’s interests for deceitfully covering up research data proving that Monsanto was hiding toxicity of its own corn.
An international environmentalist and agriculturist, Dr. Vandana Shiva also made calls against the introduction of GMOs to Nigeria citing the case of Indian farmers, many of whom are now indebted to Monsanto, because they owe to get seeds and this has trapped farmers in dependency and debt, and some farmers, out of frustration of huge debts, have committed suicide. The produce of GMO seeds are sterile, thereby protecting the patent rights of the companies that own them, this means seeds need to be bought afresh each planting season, this monopolizes agriculture in the long run. Furthermore, with the reduction in value of the naira, how sustainable is the purchase of the seeds to small scale farmers?
Countries like France, Germany, Japan, Russia, England and Italy. 19 European Union countries have also followed suit, with the EU and some Asian nations shutting its borders to GMO produce, whom does Nigeria expect to sell her modified crops to? How will the non-sale of these produce increase revenue to the country?
Now more than ever organic produce is in high demand with consumers willing to pay far more for such products. Countries such as Uganda are already benefiting from the global high demand of organic products, even the Russian President, Vladamir Putin has told the Russian Parliament of his plan to make Russia the world’s leading exporter of non-GMO foods. Organic products can go into all markets, GMO products can only go in to specific markets.
What also is the guarantee that there would be no contamination of natural varieties via pollen drift? Also, the rise of virulent pest resistance and super weeds as have emerged all over America is another factor worth noting. These pests and weeds can only be eradicated by purchasing harsher and more destructive chemicals from the same company, locking our farmers into a destructive cycle.
In 2011, scientists in Argentina found long-term effects of GMOs where these crops are grown, such as birth defects and a higher incidence of child cancer caused by glyphosate – a herbicide sprayed on GMO crops. The industrial agricultural practices of spraying these chemicals on farms create an abundance of these toxic chemicals in the air.
The Minister of Environment, Amina Mohammed, recently put to rest the growing concerns about genetically modified organism (GMO), saying at present, no genetically modified organisms are officially grown in Nigeria. She went on to say all the GMOs in Nigeria officially approved are under experimental fields and there was no need for panic.
While describing expressed concerns about GMOs as legitimate, she disclosed that the Ministry, in collaboration with NBMA is organizing an experts’ meeting involving major stakeholders with a view to clarifying Nigeria’s position on the use of GMOs.
