Food is a weapon. Whoever controls your food controls you and invariably controls society. When your SEEDS are controlled, your life is colonized! When the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was finally adopted in 2000 as a Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, international consensus grew to include the risks to human health, and socio-economic impacts “arising from the impact of GMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities.”
When the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the 1st and only international law that deals purely with genetic engineering/genetically modified organisms was negotiated and adopted on 29 January 2000 our renowned African scholars and leaders who were part of the negotiation, knew Africa would likely end up as the dumping ground for these risky technologies, they negotiated for a strict law that would protect our people, seeds, plants, animals, biodiversity, and environment. The implementation of the Precautionary Principle (where in doubt, hold the breaks) was at the heart of the African negotiators of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, its omission from the draft text in 1999 was rejected by the African Group and caused the collapse of the talks. The protocol could only be adopted in 2000 when the application of the Precautionary Principle had been defined in included.
It is therefore very sad to see that this good and long struggle, put up by our leaders was and is still undermined by some of our government agencies, notably the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) who are supposed to act as gatekeepers and custodians of our environment.
NBMA Act came into force in 2015 and it mandated the setting up of the National Biosafety Management Agency to regulate GMOs in Nigeria. This Agency, however, has acted more like a promoter of GMOs than as a regulator; approving virtually every application brought to it without consideration of science-based objections sent by groups of concerned Nigerians.
The NBMA Act is so flawed and lacks key provisions for instance, strict liability and redress which mandates that the biotechnology corporations take responsibility for immediate and future negative impacts of the use of their products as is the case in a similar Act in Uganda. Other areas of concern include lack of access to information, poor public consultation and participation, provisions for appeals and reviews, and lack of veritable provisions for the enforcement of the precautionary principle and decision-making.
The NBMA Act confers enormous discretionary powers on the agency and gives little room for oversight. The conflict of interest inherent in the NBMA Act equally raises serious red flags about the administration of biosafety in Nigeria. We have the erstwhile National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) sitting on the board of the NBMA. In 2016, two of the permits issued by NBMA to Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Limited were jointly applied with NABDA for by the company for events that were to be implemented as partners. Imagine a developer/promoter of GMOs applying for a permit in partnership with a biotech company and sitting to approve the same permit. This is an obvious reason to worry about our biosafety regulatory architecture.
The key pushers of GM crops are at the same time the major exporters of these crops, and are the same people urging the Nigerian government to accept their transgenic crops. They equally helped in facilitating and packaging a watered-down Biosafety Bill into law.
It is clear here that there is a systematic attempt to break down the popular rejection of GMOs and weaken any regulatory framework on GM crops and products.
We are worried that an Agency saddled with defending Nigeria’s biodiversity is actively promoting these risky technologies. It is regrettable that NBMA approved Monsanto’s proposal for Bt cotton, despite the fact that Burkina-Faso’s cabinet on April 14, 2016, announced its determination to reduce the acreage for genetically modified cotton. The variety was completely phased out in 2018 and replaced by conventional cotton. The Government of Burkina Faso reached that decision because GMO cotton yielded shorter fibers and they were thus suffering economic losses.
On the 23rd of September, 2024 the National Cotton Association of Nigeria (NACOTAN) reported that they “did not record any significant increase in their yields compared to the local seed varieties but instead, since the introduction of GM cotton seeds during the 2020/2021 farming season, yield per hectare has remained almost the same”.
Another worrying aspect is where the cotton farmers reported that no other crop has been able to germinate on the farmlands where the GM seeds were planted, even after four years. “The farm where we planted the GM seeds can no longer germinate our local seeds anymore. The land has been destroyed,” they noted in the Business Day report.
Propaganda, Threats, and Opposition
The propaganda of the biotech industry to multiply GM crops around the world has not been universally shared. Concerns quickly arose about the potential health, environmental, and socio-economic impacts of these risky crops.
The biotech industry had expected people and governments everywhere to embrace their GM crops without question, but public skepticism has forced them to limit their current activities to a few countries. Biotech corporations failed to market products with clear benefits for consumers or farmers. Instead, GM crops created novel and alarming problems, including genetic contamination.
Biotech giants and their powerful lobby groups rely heavily on public relations (PR) strategies to sell their dreams. for example, they herald the genetically modified ‘Golden Rice’ as a solution for Vitamin A deficiency in the Third World, but to date, this appears to be a ‘golden hoax.’ Behind the scenes, the biotech company plays dirty to secure their interests.
A new government in Mexico City has pledged to carry on the fight to keep genetically modified corn out of the national diet. “We will not allow the cultivation of genetically modified corn,” Claudia Scheinbaum stated in her inauguration speech on October 1, 2024
Mexico has placed an indefinite ban on genetically engineered corn. The courts said from the evidence before it, genetically engineered corn posed “the risk of imminent harm to the environment.” Furthermore, they will “suspend all activities involving the planting of transgenic corn in the country and end the granting of permission for experimental and pilot commercial plantings.” Mexico is the “birthplace of corn in the world.”
On Thursday, October 22, 2024, after a nine-year battle with Monsanto, the African Center for Biodiversity (ACB) won a pivotal decision in South Africa’s Supreme Court. The court agreed with the ACB that South Africa’s Executive Council of the GMO Act had approved Monsanto’s drought-resistant maize without fully assessing its safety for human health and the environment, disregarding evidence from other experts.
We are therefore very happy that at the Public Hearing yesterday: Investigative Review of Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops in Nigeria by the House Committee on Agricultural Production and Services. House of Representatives, the Federal Republic of Nigeria Chaired by Rt. Hon. Bello A. Ka’oje – Chairman, Joint Committee unanimously agreed with what they heard loudly Nigerians say through the CSOs who represent them and took the floor to speak. They clearly elucidated the dangers, risks, consequences, and impacts of allowing GMOs in our beloved country. The Honourable members agreed with us that there is indeed cause for concern, contrary to the claims of the GMOs Bandwagon and the need to act swiftly.
We hope and pray that our esteemed Honourable members will be resolute and firm and cause the change we need to move far away from the GMO pollution, propagated by the Biotech Companies/ corporations and their local agents in Nigeria.
Experience with GM contamination in other parts of the world shows that what is planted in one country may be found in another. The global picture is that although GMOs have been aggressively introduced in the world, it is still limited to a few countries and is pushed just by a handful of companies. We still have time to seal the pandora box, if we take prompt action and if Nigeria learns the numerous lessons with GM crops that can be taken from decades of commercialization of these crops in other parts of the world.
Who is setting the agenda? Whose interest are they really protecting? Who benefits from GMOs?
Nigeria does not need GMOs, and it is not in the interest of our people. Our government should respect the right of people, just like the Mexicans do, to define their own food and agricultural practices and policies. The experience with the commercialization of GM crops abroad and its failed promises, recent developments, and reports in Nigeria, are already evidence of GM crop failure. It undoubtedly illustrates that it will not be in the interest of our people to accept GM crops in our country. It will spell doom and disaster for our agricultural and food systems. We call on our government to be conscious of the fact that the future is assured only by agroecological or natural agricultural practices. Such will not be found in the laboratories of the profit-driven biotech industry.
Corporations and multinational companies should not be allowed to dictate our food and agricultural policies that undermine our agriculture and food systems. BAN GMOs NOW!
Presentation of Findings from GMOs Research and Outcome of Investigative Public Hearing Organized by the House of Reps on 19th November 2024 Mariann Bassey-Orovwuje, Deputy Executive Director ERA/FoEN and Food Sovereignty Coordinator Friends of the Earth Africa