In 2016, Nigeria approved the cultivation of genetically modified crops such as BT Cotton, BT Cowpea (beans) and Tela Maize. Interestingly, while many Nigerians blame the current administration for introducing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into agriculture, it was former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan who signed the National Biosafety Management Act of 2015, which opened the door for the free flow, trial, commercial release and trans-border movement of GMO crops in the country. The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) subsequently granted Monsanto the right to release GMO crops into Nigeria’s agricultural sector.
Civil society opposition, early warnings
The African Justice and Faith Network led strong resistance to the introduction of GMOs. On April 16, 2016, it issued a statement declaring: “Nigerian civil society groups, faith-based organisations, farmers associations, students and local community groups are calling for a global mobilisation to object to an application to the Nigerian National Biosafety Management Agency in Abuja by Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited, for the release of genetically modified cotton and corn into Nigeria’s agriculture system. Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited is a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Monsanto Company.”
In a message urging more groups to join the movement, Mariann Bassey Orovwuje, Programme Manager for Food Sovereignty at Environmental Rights Action (ERA) and Coordinator of Friends of the Earth Africa, stated: “Monsanto is pushing so hard to introduce Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into Nigeria. They just submitted two applications that we have immediately opposed with the support of over 100 Nigerian groups. Because Nigeria is a very important country in Africa, and its disproportionate influence within ECOWAS, your efforts are highly strategic for the wider movement in West Africa and beyond. We desire to escalate a global rejection of the applications.”
On its own website, the National Biosafety Management Agency declares that it is committed to ensuring the proper regulation of modern biotechnology in Nigeria so that it “does not cause harm to human health and the environment.” The Agency also claims responsibility for regulating new and emerging biotechnologies such as gene drive, gene editing and synthetic biology, to ensure biosecurity in Nigeria.
However, despite these lofty claims, many have questioned whether the agency actually performed its scientific due diligence before advising President Jonathan to approve GMO crops. What safety studies were conducted before these approvals? Where is the publicly available scientific data? Why did the agency, which was established to ensure biosafety, seemingly act contrary to its own mandate?
Global caution, the Nigerian contradiction
Before 2016, several countries had already banned GMO cultivation and imports due to safety concerns. These include Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, Poland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Belize, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Algeria, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Bhutan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, among others.
Even in the United States, agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USDA, which once maintained that GMOs were safe, later began insisting on labelling GMO crops for transparency.
In Nigeria, the House of Representatives has since halted the introduction of new GMOs and is investigating the biosafety of those already introduced. It has also called for labelling of GMO crops as a safety measure. Mariann Bassey-Orovwuje, now Deputy Executive Director at Friends of the Earth Nigeria, urged the National Assembly to overhaul the NBMA and review the Act establishing it.
Scientific institutions and health agencies worldwide have expressed mixed findings about GMOs. According to Healthline, while GMOs may offer benefits such as improved yield, pest resistance and nutritional value, concerns persist about potential links to cancer, allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance and biodiversity loss. The National Library of Medicine warns that many studies have shown GM foods may cause toxic effects on the liver, pancreas, kidneys and reproductive organs, and that long-term studies are still needed to confirm safety.
ScienceDirect also notes that GM crops may alter soil microorganisms, transfer genes to native bacteria and pose environmental risks by creating resistant species and affecting biodiversity.
Accountability, state role, the Plateau Question
In May 2024, the House of Representatives directed the suspension of new GMO introductions and ordered an investigation. Yet, just four months later, the National Biosafety Management Agency was preparing to release a genetically modified potato.
This raises critical questions: How many scientific laboratories does the agency operate to test GMO crops? Are Nigerian farmers’ lands being used for unmonitored experiments? What is NAFDAC’s role in approving these crops without public safety trials? Are agencies relying on foreign data instead of conducting local research?
For Plateau State, a major potato and maize producer—particularly in Jos, Bokkos and Mangu—these questions are urgent. Has the State Government requested biosafety data from the national agency and NAFDAC before permitting GMO potato cultivation? Are farmers aware of the differences between conventional and genetically modified crops?
Agricultural field officers could play a vital role in helping farmers identify and label GMO crops already circulating in local markets. Public education is critical to ensure Nigerians are not unknowingly consuming products that may pose health risks.
Meanwhile, the NBMA Director-General, Dr Agnes Yemisi Asagbra, recently reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to “ensuring the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops in Nigeria through a comprehensive Post-Release Monitoring (PRM) framework.” She made this statement during a stakeholders’ meeting on February 12, 2025, to discuss monitoring procedures for TELA Maize. Yet, her repeated emphasis on post-release monitoring has sparked criticism, as many believe safety research should precede release, not follow it.
A call for research, transparency, responsibility
The issue of GMOs cannot be resolved by the House of Representatives and non-governmental organisations alone. State governments, the Consumer Protection Council, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, NAFDAC and other relevant institutions must demand full accountability from the Biosafety Agency.
The Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria, which coordinates agricultural research, cannot independently study the health effects of GMOs. It must work with allied bodies such as the Association of Public Health of Nigeria, Dietitians Association of Nigeria, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Soil Science Society of Nigeria and Society for Oncology and Cancer Research of Nigeria.
Ultimately, Nigerians from all walks of life buy and consume locally grown food. Therefore, food safety must take precedence over food security. All levels of government should prioritise public health, fund independent biosafety research laboratories and renegotiate contracts with GMO seed suppliers to include mandatory safety testing.
As a proverb warns: “One should not throw a stone in the marketplace because it may land on one’s relative.” The same caution applies to the National Biosafety Management Agency, NAFDAC, and all related institutions. Nigeria must not sacrifice the health of its citizens for agricultural profit. The release and commercialisation of GMO crops should be suspended until thorough, peer-reviewed scientific research proves their safety for human health, the environment and future generations.