Because of the controversy surrounding the subject of genetically modified organisms in Nigeria and the world, I feel constrained to state my stand before I start this treatise. My position is reflected in my previous articles on this issue, and it is simple: Nigeria should join other developing countries to set up a robust and rigid regulatory structure on GM products; but it must endeavour to concentrate more resources in developing simpler and unsophisticated biotechnological processes, like plant breeding and tissue culture, for grassroots development. Ours is a highly populated country plagued by “consumerism without production” and we risk being overrun by global corporate giants and their GM patents if we do otherwise.
Having said that, let me proceed to state that it is a welcome development that Nigeria has now officially joined the GM world, and set to optimally harness modern biotechnology. It came last April when former President Goodluck Jonathan signed the then embattled National Biosafety Bill into law. It is hoped that our country will increase its food production with the use of GM crops.
With the new development it means we have adopted biosafety as a tool for the safe handling, use and transfer of genetically modified organisms by enacting into law the National Biosafety Act for the establishment of the National Biosafety Management Agency. This new agency is housed under the umbrella of the Federal Ministry of Environment, with various biosafety guidelines and regulations scheduled to regulate the budding industry. Sir Rufus Ebegba is the pioneer Director General/Chief Executive Officer of the agency.
Interestingly, in the seeming never-ending debate about the appropriateness of using GM products, there have been so much anti-GM voices raised from Europe, while America seems receptive to the products. Africa becomes the new battlefield. Therefore, it is to the advantage of supporters that Africa is singularly faced with food security challenge. On a peripheral note, those that need more food need the magic of biotechnology’s GMO more. But the reality is that without a robust regulation and a patriotic approach to adoption of the technology, it may turn out to become the real Frankenstein!
The challenges for Africa are enormous. It is projected that by the year 2050, the population will double to two billion people while the land available for cultivation will decrease by two thirds. These two factors combined raise the question of how to produce food and nutrition for the growing population. Moreover, this will also affect the development of the volatile African economy, since 65 per cent of its labour force and 32 per cent of its gross domestic products currently come from the agricultural sector.
It is noteworthy that many countries on the African continent have already embraced genetically modified crops long ago. However, while North and South America and Asia are well-known growers of GM crops, some African countries stayed behind in these biotechnological developments till recently. In Nigeria, the National Assembly’s initial plans to pass the Biosafety bill in 2012 did not see the light of day because of fireworks raised by the proposition.
As far back as 1998, South Africa became the first African country to approve genetically modified (BT) cotton and is now the eighth largest producer of GM crops worldwide. Since then, more and more African countries have followed suit. Although only three other African countries – Egypt, Sudan and Burkina Faso – are currently producing GM crops, many more African countries are investing in research and field trials. As expected, even countries that used to oppose GMOs have altered their tough stance and have embraced the new technology for food security.
For example, in May 2013, after banning GM crop imports the year before, Kenya announced that it would rethink its stance and begin field trials in the coming year with GM bananas engineered to resist bacterial disease. Also, a lot of research is being conducted into indigenous parasites and plant diseases, which used to cause large-scale crop damage. In Nigeria for instance, the pest Marucavitrata causes crop damage worth nearly USD 300 million annually. Scientists from the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, developed a pest-resistant black-eyed pea variety to control this particular insect.
Similarly, in Uganda, Xanthomonas wilt has affected banana plants and costs farmers several hundred million dollars annually. But, Ugandan researchers worked on a transgenic banana to control Xanthomonas. Like Nigeria, Uganda experienced heated discussions about the pros and cons of GM crops deployment in the country. A biotechnology and bio-safety bill was fiercely debated by Ugandan lawmakers, scientists and activists, but finally passed at the end of 2012.
Truth be told, when you are hungry it is very difficult to take sides on which food is best for your health; the bottom-line is to get fed and live. This is why for Africa, the benefits outweigh the costs. Genetically modified crops help increase yields and reduce input costs, thus, growing more food in less time, with less money, and labour. These foods will not only be produced in more quantity but can also have a longer shelf life with less labour and natural materials (water, soil, and energy) to produce. These modified food crops can produce the needed better nutritional foods that we need, generating vast improvement in food security and ensuring a relief for Africans and indeed Nigeria which is blessed with arable lands, and a dynamic population.
But let us look at the flip side. Without proper regulation, global chemical giants can take advantage of our population and introduce what is known as terminator breeds into the agricultural sector, and then corrupt government officials and politicians shall look the other way while our indigenous GMO producers are shoved off the market in a twinkle of an eye. So, in as much as there are promises, every stakeholder involved must not lose sight of food safety and quality, health, the environment, the economy, our society, our biodiversity, and overriding ethics.
COP 21 and the midway point Draft Deal. In the ongoing climate talks in Paris, the first week of negotiations are over; and the delegates are now in the second and most crucial part of the Climate Conference. Interestingly, a draft deal was presented earlier this week to the COP, but the contents are far from palatable to all involved.
The two lingering issues that stick out like sore fingers are: Who should pay for a global transition to clean energy sources?; and What happens to countries that fail to achieve their emissions-cut goals? The second question prompted the proposal for the establishment of an International Tribunal of Climate Justice, an idea most welcome to the developing world, but of course unattractive to the industrialized nations.
I think the first problem could be resolved by the already existing Green Climate Fund if the developed world is sincere enough to fulfill pledges and to scale up ambitions in due course. Now the second problem is where the issue lies and will end up being what will determine the success of COP 21. But if I were asked to vote, I will vote for a global court to sanction climate offenders, because without rigid enforcement, the promises about climate justice shall remain mere talks!
PUNCH
END
Be the first to comment