Beyond mere arguments, it is no longer in doubt that GM technology can help boost food production and help developing countries reduce the dehumanising menace of hunger and starvation.
By BENNETT C. NWANGUMA
As someone who was involved in the advocacy for the passage of the Nigerian Biosafety Bill by the 7th and 8th National Assemblies, before it was finally signed into law by President Goodluck Jonathan in April 2015, I feel a deep sense of responsibility to contribute to the on-going discussion about GM foods in Nigeria. The current debate was provoked by two cheery developments- the reported success of the BT Cowpea engineered by Professor Mohammad Ishiyaku and his team at the Institute of for Agricultural Research at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and the brave endorsement of GM foods by the Director General of NAFDAC, Professor Mojisola Adeyeye. Conspiracy theorists have long taken advantage of the absence of such endorsements by regulatory agencies and knowledgeable scientists to promote all manner of myths, half truths and outright scaremongering about new developments in the field of biotechnology and related fields.
Technological advancements, such as agricultural biotechnology, have become essential features of human civilization. In the last century, a number of such advancements resulted in unprecedented and hitherto unimaginable improvements in virtually every field of human endeavour, especially medicine, agriculture, communication and transportation. Man’s current domination of the earth, including his rather audacious incursions to the moon and other planets, has also been made possible by a number of such cumulative technological advancements recorded over time.
In the field of medicine, such technological advances have not only led to the discovery of previously unknown diseases, but also resulted in an improved ability to prevent, diagnose and manage many more diseases. The direct benefits of these medical advances include an improved quality of life and a significant increase in the average life expectancy of human populations all over the world. Some common medical practices like blood transfusion, organ transplantation, vaccination, protein replacement and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) met with similar deafening rejections when they were first introduced. Worthy of mention is the reaction elicited by the birth of Lewis Brown, the first ever baby to be born by IVF in 1977. Fast forward to 2025, countless babies have been born by IVF all over the world, and thay have all grown to be healthy adults and even parents.
As man continuously seeks to overcome the new challenges posed by an ever – changing and an increasingly unpredictable environment, man must continue to advance technologically. Thus, to survive, man must be willing to deploy newly acquired knowledge in the creation of new tools, new methods and novel products.
Remarkably, benefitting from most of the technological advances recorded in human history – from the use of fire (one of the earliest inventions of man) to the use of electricity (one of the most remarkable inventions of man), from the use of herbs to treat an upset stomach to the use of Viagra to enhance sexual performance – involves a certain degree of risk, and therefore requires a commensurate level of caution. The same is also true of the use of genetic engineering and recombinant DNA technology to create new varieties of crops which are commonly referred to as genetically modified crops.
As a signatory to the Cartegeena Protocol of 2001, Nigeria was expected to have a biosafety law to enable her regulate the practice of agricultural biotechnology in the country. This is in recognition of the need to regulate this new and emerging technology in the country. One cardinal requirement of this law is the establishment of a National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) which will be saddled with the responsibility of regulating the practice of modern agricultural biotechnology in the country. Nigeria met this requirement in 2015 and NBMA has continued to live up to its responsibility of regulating the practice of new biotechnology in the country.
For purposes of clarity, modern biotechnology is a relatively new form of technology that primarily involves the targeted alteration of the genetic materials of living organisms for the purpose of endowing them with new potentials which they did not have in their original form. Its application in agriculture has the potential for the production of crops with such desirable attributes as higher yield, pest resistance, drought tolerance, enhanced shelf – life, etc., all of which result ultimately in improved yield and income for the farmer and improved food availability in the country.
Common sense demands that a new technology, like modern biotechnology, which offers immense benefits to the society and whose benefits have been shown across the world to outweigh the risks be embraced. The purpose of the caution in the adoption of these new technologies is to ensure that the society derives the optimum benefits offered by the technology, while minimising whatever risks there may be. Thus, as with previous technological advancements, the decision by a society to adopt a new technology or otherwise, will depend to a large extent on the answer to the popular ethical question, ‘do the benefits outweigh the risks’? As an illustration, fire is acceptable today in most societies because the benefits of cooking are believed to outweigh the risks of fire accidents in the kitchen. Similarly, aeroplanes are acceptable because the benefits of air travels outweigh the risks of occasional air crashes and the use of chemicals in farming has been sustained because the benefits are thought to outweigh the risks of toxicity to the farmer and the potential to pollute the environment.
For genetically modified (GM) foods, the same benefit – versus – risk debate has lingered since the experiments that led to the production of first GM crops over 30 years ago began. This debate reached a crescendo when Nigeria sought to join the league of countries that allow the importation, distribution and cultivation of GM crops in 2015.
While the pro – GM advocates favoured the passage of the bill to pave way for the distribution and cultivation of GM crops, which they argued will improve food availability in the country, the anti GM groups argued that the GM crops pose serious threats to human life and the environment, and therefore opposed the bill. Pro GM groups further argued that Nigerian farmers would never be able to feed the nation by relying on the low-yielding, semi-wild varieties which are susceptible to a number of diseases, pests and climatic conditions, such as drought and salinity, while the anti – GM groups counter by insisting that GM crops do not offer all the claimed benefits and could place the belly of the world in the hands of few biotechnology companies.
When faced with such a dilemma – where advancement in technology offers a lot of benefits, but with the potential also to adversely affect the society which stands to benefit from it – the society must seek a way of deriving the benefits offered by the technology, while limiting the risks.
This can be accomplished in two ways. Firstly, the society must develop a regulatory framework within which the technology should operate to ensure that any potential risks to society is eliminated or minimised. This can be likened to the introduction of traffic codes, road safety and air safety laws, which are enforced to ensure road and air safety. Secondly, further improvements of the technology must be pursued with the primary purpose of improving safety through the minimisation or elimination of identified risks. (This can be likened to the making of newer cars with air bags, and better brakes and newer aeroplanes with better navigational facilities). This has been the case since the first GM crops were licensed in the early 1990s. Over this period, the efficiency with which the genetic transformations are done have been improved significantly. In addition, safer techniques have been developed and many more stringent tests have been introduced to ensure that all forms of risks to human health are eliminated and potential adverse impacts on the environment are minimised. For example, the use of antibiotic marker genes, whose presence in GM foods was thought to pose the risk of proliferation of antibiotic resistant bugs, has been discontinued. The new CRISPR technology of gene editing has eliminated one of the major ethical concerns associated with genetic modification.
Beyond mere arguments, it is no longer in doubt that GM technology can help boost food production and help developing countries reduce the dehumanising menace of hunger and starvation. Examples of success abound, from USA to Canada, from Argentina to Spain and from India to South Africa. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) – the most credible and authoritative organisation on world food matters – has affirmed this. The most authoritative organisations on human health, including the WHO, the British Medical Association, the United States Medical Association have also endorsed GM foods as safe.