Advertisement

Nigeria’s GMO Debate Needs Better Questions, Not Bigger Fears

By Arafat Abdulrazaq

There is something interesting about the way Nigerians talk about technology. We embrace it easily when we can see what it does for us. We use tractors to farm faster. We rely on improved seeds, irrigation systems, fertilisers and pesticides. Satellites monitor farms, drones survey fields, weather data guides planting decisions, and artificial intelligence is slowly entering agriculture.

But once technology enters the genetic makeup of food itself, the conversation changes.

Genetically modified crops have been commercially available globally since the 1990s. Nigeria joined that group with Bt cotton in 2016, followed by genetically modified cowpea and TELA maize. The basic idea behind genetic modification is not as mysterious as it sounds. Scientists identify a gene associated with a useful trait—such as insect resistance or drought tolerance—and introduce it into a crop to solve a specific agricultural problem.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines GMOs as organisms whose genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally through mating or recombination. WHO also makes an important point: different GM organisms contain different genes and are developed differently, so their safety must be assessed case by case.

That distinction matters because “Are GMOs safe?” is not a complete scientific question. The better question is:Which GMO? What was changed? Why was it changed? What evidence supports its safety? What risks were assessed?

Nigeria’s argument for adopting GM technology is tied to the challenges facing its agricultural sector. Crops are attacked by pests and diseases. Farmers face drought and harsh weather. Meanwhile, Nigeria’s population continues to grow, increasing pressure on food production. Bt cowpea was developed to resist the Maruca pod borer. TELA maize combines insect resistance with drought tolerance. Supporters argue that genetic modification can achieve specific traits faster than conventional breeding.

This is not entirely new thinking. Humans have been modifying crops for thousands of years through selection and breeding. Modern biotechnology simply increases the speed and precision.

But faster does not automatically mean better, and technology does not eliminate the need for scrutiny.

This is where public concerns become legitimate. People want to know what happens to the environment, whether modified genes can spread to other crops, whether pests can develop resistance, what happens to biodiversity, who controls the seeds and whether farmers can become dependent on particular companies. And, of course, whether the food is safe to eat.

WHO says safety assessments for GM foods examine toxicity, potential allergic reactions, nutritional changes, gene stability and unintended effects. Environmental assessments examine gene flow, effects on non‑target organisms and biodiversity. WHO also says GM foods currently on the international market that have passed safety assessments are not likely to present risks to human health—while emphasising continued monitoring.

That is different from saying every GMO ever created is automatically safe. It is also different from saying every concern is misinformation. Both extremes damage the conversation.

One claim that often appears online is that eating genetically modified food can alter a person’s DNA. It sounds frightening, but the science does not support it. Humans consume DNA every day when we eat plants and animals. The genetic material in food is broken down during digestion. WHO has considered gene transfer as a theoretical question and says the probability is low. There is no established evidence that eating approved GM foods causes their introduced genes to become part of human DNA.

But this does not mean Nigerians should stop asking questions.

In fact, one of the biggest problems with the GMO debate may have less to do with genetics and more to do with information. A person may encounter a social media post claiming GMOs cause cancer or infertility. On the other side, a regulator may simply say GMOs are safe. Neither statement gives the average consumer enough information to understand the issue.

WHO says there is no demonstrated evidence of adverse human‑health effects from consumption of GM foods currently approved and on the international market, while stressing continued safety assessment. That nuance often disappears online.

Distrust is also understandable. For many Nigerians, GMO technology is associated with foreign companies, foreign laboratories and decisions made far away from the people who eventually eat the food or plant the seeds. That raises questions beyond biology: Who owns the technology? Who benefits economically? What protections exist for farmers? How transparent is the approval process? What happens if something goes wrong?

These are questions of regulation and governance—not evidence that GM food is inherently dangerous.

Nigeria has a regulatory structure. The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) oversees activities involving GMOs, including risk assessment and approval before commercial release. But regulation is only as useful as the public’s ability to understand and trust it.

Labelling is another issue. Nigeria’s regulations require GM products to be labelled. Yet a 2025 study examining 15 processed plant‑based food products sold in Abuja found GMO‑related regulatory sequences in 11 samples. Only two were appropriately labelled. The study did not show the products were harmful, but it raised a crucial question:If consumers are expected to make informed choices, can they actually tell what they are buying?

That is a transparency problem, whether one supports GMOs or not.

There is also a tendency to assume that the alternative to GM crops is always “natural agriculture.” It is not. Farmers already use pesticides, fertilisers, improved seeds and irrigation. In some cases, pest‑resistant GM crops can reduce insecticide use. WHO notes that insect‑resistant GM crops can lead to lower insecticide use where pest pressure is high.

So the comparison should not be “GMO versus natural food.” It should be:Which method solves the problem? What risks does it create? How are those risks managed?

That is ultimately where Nigeria’s GMO debate should move—not towards blind acceptance, not towards fear‑driven rejection, but towards better questions.

What exactly was modified? Why was it modified? What evidence supports its safety? What environmental risks were considered? Who approved it? How is it monitored? Are consumers properly informed? Who is accountable if new evidence emerges?

Genetic modification is a technology. Like many technologies, it can solve some problems while creating new ones that require management. It is not a magic solution to Nigeria’s food crisis. A new seed cannot fix poor storage, inadequate irrigation, bad roads, insecurity or weak agricultural infrastructure. But neither should the technology be judged by claims with no scientific basis.

Nigeria is already using GM technology. The question now is not whether Nigerians should fear GMOs. It is whether Nigerians have enough credible information to understand what they are being asked to accept.

Technology can change the way we produce food. It cannot, by itself, produce public trust.

As‑sayyidul Arafat Abdulrazaq is a journalist and co‑author of ‘Anti‑Drug, Anti‑Smuggling Campaigns: A Corpers’ Chronicle’. He writes from Abuja and can be reached via [email protected]