Experts Raise Fresh Concerns Over GMO Deployment In Nigeria, Demand Ban

Environmental and public health advocates have renewed calls for Nigeria to halt the approval and deployment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), warning that the country risks exposing citizens and the environment to potential long-term harm without adequate scientific evidence of safety.

In a strongly worded intervention, environmental activist and Executive Director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Nnimmo Bassey, alongside public health scientist and food sovereignty campaigner Joyce Brown, criticised the stance of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), accusing the agency of adopting a defensive posture instead of addressing critical concerns surrounding the technology.

The duo argued that the continued promotion of genetically engineered crops in Nigeria assumes that foreign-approved biotechnology cannot be flawed and that Africa cannot achieve agricultural progress without adopting GMOs.

They were reacting to a recent publication that defended the country’s GMO regulatory framework and suggested that Nigeria was not experimenting with genetically modified crops but merely regulating them.

According to them, such arguments overlook fundamental questions about the safety and long-term implications of GMOs in the country.

They noted that the NBMA itself had previously acknowledged that its mandate was to regulate, rather than stop, the deployment of GMOs, raising concerns about whether regulation alone is sufficient where significant risks exist.

The activists stressed that the Precautionary Principle, a core provision of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to which Nigeria is a signatory, requires countries to exercise caution and halt adoption of technologies where potential threats to human health or the environment remain uncertain.

They questioned the absence of publicly available long-term and independent risk assessment studies supporting the safety of GMOs already approved in Nigeria.

According to them, Nigeria has approved four genetically modified crops for commercial planting and more than ten others for food, feed and processing, yet the results of peer-reviewed long-term feeding and environmental impact studies remain unavailable.

They argued that the absence of such information undermines public trust in the regulatory system.

“The Nigerian government must answer a fundamental question: where are the results of long-term and independent peer-reviewed risk assessments that confirm the safety of these products?” they asked.

Without such evidence, they warned, the country risks effectively turning Nigerians into “test subjects” while the nation’s soils and ecosystems serve as experimental laboratories.

Bassey and Brown also challenged the widely promoted argument that GMOs are necessary to feed Nigeria’s growing population, insisting that genetically engineered crops have not demonstrated clear yield advantages over conventional varieties when grown under similar conditions.

They claimed that the push for GMOs is largely driven by economic interests of multinational seed companies and biotechnology firms seeking control over agricultural markets.

Citing experiences from Nigerian cotton farmers who adopted genetically modified Bt cotton, they said farmers had reported in 2024 that the crop failed to outperform conventional varieties after several years of cultivation.

According to them, farmers also complained that soil quality had deteriorated, possibly due to toxins released into the soil by the genetically modified crop.

The advocates further raised concerns over the ownership and control of genetically modified seeds, warning that intellectual property rights tied to such seeds could eventually place farmers at the mercy of multinational corporations.

They also warned of the possibility of cross-pollination contaminating local crop varieties, threatening Nigeria’s indigenous genetic resources.

They cited the example of Mexico, which in 2024 placed an indefinite ban on genetically engineered corn after courts ruled that the crop posed a risk of imminent environmental harm and threatened the country’s thousands of native maize varieties.

The activists noted that Nigeria is considered a centre of origin for cowpea (beans), yet genetically modified insect-resistant beans have already been introduced into farms and markets.

They called on government authorities to establish seed banks to preserve indigenous crop varieties and protect the country’s agricultural biodiversity.

The absence of proper labelling of GMO products in Nigeria also drew criticism from the advocates, who said consumers are being denied the right to know what they are eating.

According to them, many processed foods sold in supermarkets across the country are likely made from genetically modified ingredients, yet consumers remain unaware due to lack of clear labelling.

They referenced surveys conducted by the Health of Mother Earth Foundation in 2018, 2019 and 2023 across ten Nigerian cities, which reportedly identified more than 50 brands of imported processed foods containing GMO ingredients, including cereals, vegetable oils, spices, ice-cream and cake mixes.

The activists insisted that releasing GMO products into the market without labels undermines consumer rights and contradicts the spirit of Nigeria’s biosafety laws.

They therefore renewed calls for a nationwide ban on GMOs and urged the Federal Government to suspend approval of new genetically modified crops pending a comprehensive review of existing approvals.

They recalled that Nigeria’s House of Representatives had in 2024 recommended that no new GMOs be approved until the approval process is thoroughly examined.

Beyond biotechnology debates, the advocates argued that Nigeria’s food insecurity crisis cannot be solved through genetic engineering alone.

They identified several structural challenges facing the agricultural sector, including inadequate government funding, widespread insecurity preventing farmers from accessing their farmlands, weak extension services and poor rural infrastructure.

Instead, they urged a transition towards agroecology — a farming approach that works in harmony with nature while incorporating local knowledge, cultural practices and ecological sustainability.
Such an approach, they said, would strengthen food sovereignty, improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and promote biodiversity while ensuring healthier food systems.

According to them, the focus should be on addressing the root causes of food insecurity rather than relying on technological fixes that could create new environmental and health risks.

“GMOs only attempt to address the symptoms of deeper food system problems while increasing profits for their promoters,” they said.

“The ecological damage, biodiversity loss and potential health and economic risks far outweigh any perceived benefits.”

They concluded by urging Nigeria to rethink its agricultural direction and prioritise people-centred food systems that protect the environment and safeguard the health and rights of citizens.