Nigeria Content Online

In 2008, after
three years of solid work, over 400 scientists, 30 governments from
developed and developing countries, as well as 30 civil society
organisations, concluded an epochal work under the International
Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD). About 60 countries endorsed the report at a meeting in
Johannesburg in April of that year.

The assessment
process was initiated by the World Bank in partnership with others like
the FAO, UNDP, UNEP, WHO, UNESCO, and national governments. The IAASTD
examined the potential of agricultural knowledge, science and
technology for reducing hunger and poverty, improving rural
livelihoods, and working towards environmentally, socially, and
economically sustainable development.

The report
concluded that modern biotechnology would have very limited
contribution to the feeding of the world in the foreseeable future. The
conclusion was that a viable food future lies in the creative support
of ecological agriculture in which small-scale farmers will continue to
play a major role. Initially participating biotech industry sector
pulled out of the IAASTD when they couldn’t impose their agenda on the
study team.

Other studies have
shown that the claim that genetically engineered (GE) crops have a
higher yield than natural varieties is virtually a myth, and also the
claim that GE crops lead to reduction in the use of pesticides and
other agro chemicals.

Neither is it true that the way to overcome nutritional deficiencies must be through techno fixes.

The Cartagena
Protocol (adopted in 2000) of the Convention on Biological Diversity
requires that, at a minimum, every nation should exercise a
precautionary principle when it comes to the introduction of GE crops
or organisms into the environment. This protocol deals with Living
Modified Organisms (LMOs) that may have adverse effects on the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. It takes
“into account risks to human health and specifically focusing on
transboundary movements.” The term ‘living modified organisms’ is what
is usually termed Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

Besides these, the
biotech industry and their backers have over the years vigorously
resisted the labelling of GE products and would rather have them
sneaked into people’s plates without their knowing. But the biotech
industry does not want to go about it this way any longer.

Their argument is
that GE crops and products are substantially equivalent to natural
varieties. The question they always refuse to answer is, why do they
insist on patent on GE varieties if they were similar to natural
varieties?

The issue of the
patenting of life, including modified life forms, is a matter for
another discussion. But suffice to mention here that major players in
the biotech industry, such as Monsanto, maintain a battery of lawyers
who snoop around and sue farmers for infringing their patent rights,
even when they (Monsanto) should actually be held liable for having
their seeds contaminate the farms of farmers who choose not to
cultivate GE crops.

The food aid agenda

Talking about this
biotech industry giant brings to mind the specious philanthropic thrust
that is seeking to open the African environment to GE crops and
products. The Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA),
sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, has vigorously denied on various occasions that they intend
to use modern biotech tools in their tackling of hunger in Africa.

Their denials have
met scepticism and the recent revelation that the Bill Gates Foundation
was making investments in Monsanto should send clear signals to
perceptive Africans and African governments that this Alliance is based
on the platform of philanthropic capitalism.

The other route has
been through food aid as well as uncontrolled commercial imports. The
food aid route became public in 2002 when Zambia exercised her right to
choose what type of foods to allow into her territory and rejected
genetically engineered maize as food aid. Zambia was vilified and
pressured, but refused to buckle. Questions were asked as to why hungry
people should choose to stay hungry rather than eat GE products. We
note here that Zambia rejected GE food aid, weathered the storm, and
produced a bumper harvest the following year.

The US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) is currently considering whether to approve a
genetically engineered (GE) salmon, which contains a modified growth
hormone gene, for sale to US consumers. Opposition to this fish has
come from a wide range of groups including a group of 40
Representatives and Senators from the US Congress, who have called on
the FDA not to approve the fish for human consumption. They are
questioning the approval process and the lack of adequate public
consultation.

Ignorant Nigerian Representative

While the world is
advancing towards stricter control of GMOs, it is a different ball game
in Nigeria where the chairman of the House committee on agriculture,
Mr. Gbenga Makanjuola, has become a loose canon in his wholesale
endorsement and push for the introduction of GE crops and products into
Nigeria.

Rather than see the
Biosafety Bill that the National Assembly has been considering as a
legislation to ensure the regulation of genetically modified organisms
in Nigeria, Mr. Makajuola and his team see the bill as the key that
will throw caution into the winds and allow the pushers of GE crops and
products to have a field day in Nigeria.

His recent and past
public pronouncements have been shockingly based on discredited or at
least unproven biotech industry claims. We have reasons to believe that
the Biosafety Bill Nigerians will receive from the National Assembly
would have been drafted solely to satisfy the interests of those who
wish to push yet another nail into the coffin of the already prostrate
Nigerian environment.

This is a matter about what we eat. It is a matter of life or death. We cannot afford to play politics or speculate on this.