A coalition of Nigerian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has launched a scathing critique of government agencies regarding their stance on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), accusing them of inconsistency and a lack of rigorous, independent research.
The coalition, comprising Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Environmental Rights Action, and the GMO-Free Nigeria Alliance, a coalition of over 80 civil society organisations, researchers, farmers, women and youth groups representing the interest of millions of Nigerians, is calling for a total ban on GMOs, citing concerns about human health, environmental degradation, and threats to the nation’s food sovereignty, reports Saturday Independent.
The controversy stems from seemingly contradictory statements made by the Director-General (DG) of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Prof. Mojisola Adeyeye.
While in an interview on Channels Television on August 8, 2025, Adeyeye asserted that “genetically modified organisms known as GMOs, particularly in food, are not harmful to human health, provided that safety protocols are followed,” this declaration stands in stark contrast to her earlier pronouncements.
As recently as June 2024, during an interview on Arise News Television, Adeyeye expressed concerns about GMOs in Nigeria, stating that “NAFDAC does not consider GMO foods safe for consumption due to insufficient research and data at the agency’s disposal regarding their safety.”
At the time, she emphasised that “until we get very convincing data to show the safety for human consumption,” NAFDAC’s position remained that GMOs are not safe, acknowledging potential uses for non-food crops but finding no evidence from NAFDAC that they are safe for human consumption.
This apparent flip-flop has ignited the ire of the NGO coalition, who question the basis for Adeyeye’s change of heart.
“Why has the DG of NAFDAC changed her mind on the safety of GMOs?” the coalition asks in a statement signed by 82 groups. “Where is the rigorous, independent and long-term research that NAFDAC or the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) has conducted to confirm that GMOs are safe for consumption, or what exactly informs this radical change of opinion?”
The core of the NGOs’ argument revolves around the perceived lack of independent and long-term research conducted by Nigerian regulatory agencies to assess the safety of GMOs.
Professor Johnson Ekpere, an Independent Consultant and Convener of the GMO-Free Nigeria Alliance, echoes this concern, stating that “these agencies are yet to show evidence of a robust, long-term and independent study, particularly feeding studies to confirm that GMOs are safe.”
This absence of robust local research is particularly concerning given the existing international scientific literature highlighting potential risks associated with GMOs. Ekpere points to a “recent rat feeding study by Iranian scientists which showed substantial liver and kidney damage in rats fed GM soybean oil for 90 days.”
He further adds that “similar studies have also shown a connection to tumors and immune disorders manifesting as asthma, allergies and more.” The implication is clear: without comprehensive research tailored to the Nigerian context, regulators are potentially exposing the population to unknown and potentially dangerous health risks.
The coalition also criticises the reliance on information from external sources, particularly from the biotech industry. They argue that such sources are often biased and lack the necessary objectivity to ensure public safety. The worry is that governmental agencies are simply parroting industry talking points without conducting their own due diligence, which Professor Ekpere describes as “unacceptable for agencies of government who are saddled with the responsibility to protect our health and environment.”
The NGOs’ concerns extend beyond human health, encompassing the potential for environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity.
Dr. Nnimmo Bassey, the Executive Director of HOMEF, warns that “the setbacks on GMOs go beyond health complications to long-term and possibly irreversible soil/environmental degradation.”
Bassey cites a report from the National Cotton Farmers Association of Nigeria, where the farmers lament that after three years of planting Bt cotton, conventional crops are not growing on those soils. Bt cotton is genetically modified to produce its own insecticide, and the implication is that this process can negatively impact soil health and fertility over time.
The NGOs also point to the widespread use of herbicide-tolerant GMOs, which constitute approximately 80 per cent of GMOs globally. These crops are engineered to withstand specific herbicides, allowing farmers to spray the chemicals liberally to control weeds. While this may seem efficient in the short term, the NGOs argue that it leads to the critical destruction of biodiversity. “Herbicide tolerant GMOs… have led to the critical destruction of biodiversity as the herbicides the GMOs are designed to withstand do not only kill target pests but also beneficial organisms within the soil ecosystem,” the statement reads.
“Furthermore, the repeated use of herbicides has led to the development of super weeds, forcing farmers to require even more toxic formulations of herbicides that are not only injurious to the environment but also to human health.”
In addition to the health and environmental concerns, the NGOs highlight the threat that GMOs pose to Nigeria’s food sovereignty and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. Barrister Mariann Bassey-Olsson, the Deputy Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action, emphasises the “critical risk of genetic contamination of our indigenous seed varieties owing to gene transfer.” This contamination, she argues, is irreversible and could lead to the loss of valuable local crop varieties.
Drawing a comparison with other countries that have implemented bans or restrictions on GMOs, Bassey-Olsson notes that “Mexico and a host of other countries have placed a total or partial ban on GMOs. We cannot overlook such a grave threat to our plant genetic resources.”
The NGOs also contend that GMOs create a dependence on foreign seed companies, undermining the traditional practices of Nigerian farmers. “GMOs foster dependence on foreign seed companies, since they do not produce well after the first planting, and farmers are forced to buy new seeds season after season,” Bassey-Olsson states.
“Moreso, GMOs are patented – meaning their producers have exclusive rights to the seeds for many years. This prohibits the selling or exchange of seeds, which is an age-old practice by our farmers.”
The implication is that GMOs disrupt the traditional agricultural systems and place farmers at the mercy of multinational corporations, jeopardising their autonomy and economic viability.
Adding another layer to the controversy, the NGOs raise concerns about the transparency and effectiveness of the regulatory oversight provided by NAFDAC and the NBMA.
Joyce Brown, the Director of Programmes at HOMEF, questions NAFDAC’s actions regarding processed food products in the market that are labeled to contain GMOs.
“Beyond the MoU signed with @ NBMA, what is NAFDAC doing about the over 50 different brands of processed food products in our markets that are labelled to contain GMOs ? Did NAFDAC and NBMA certify these products?”
The NGOs cite a specific instance in 2018 where HOMEF and other CSOs wrote to NAFDAC to confirm if they were aware of the permit for GM Maize granted to WACOT Ltd in 2017. NAFDAC responded that they didn’t know about such an approval, raising questions about the level of communication and coordination between government agencies responsible for regulating GMOs.
Brown further highlights the case of WACOT Ltd, which “tried to illegally import the maize but was apprehended by the Nigerian Customs Service. The NBMA publicly said the maize would be repatriated, but just a few weeks later, WACOT was granted approval to import the maize for 3 years.”
This apparent reversal of policy raises serious questions about the integrity and effectiveness of the regulatory process. She says, This goes against provisions of the NBMA Act 2015, which states that an applicant shall give notice 270 days before any GMOs are imported.
In light of their concerns about health, environment, food sovereignty, and regulatory oversight, the NGO coalition is calling for a comprehensive ban on GMOs in Nigeria. They urge the Nigerian Senate to “effect a ban on GMOs; to protect our indigenous seed varieties; protect human health; preserve the integrity of our soils/environment, and to support/ promote agroecological approaches to food system challenges.”
The coalition emphasises the need for the government to address the root causes of food insecurity through sustainable and equitable means. “The coalition stressed the need for the government to address the root causes of food insecurity; to increase support for smallholder farmers through better access to credit, land and other resources, provision of infrastructure, and to address the crises that keep many farmers away from their farms.”
The NGOs advocate for the adoption of agroecological practices, which promote biodiversity, soil health, and resilience to climate change. They believe that these practices offer a more sustainable and equitable path to food security in Nigeria, one that protects both human health and the environment.
The controversy surrounding GMOs in Nigeria highlights the complex interplay of science, policy, and public opinion. The concerns raised by the NGO coalition underscore the need for rigorous, independent research, transparent regulatory processes, and a commitment to protecting the health, environment, and food sovereignty of the nation.
As the debate continues, it is crucial that all stakeholders engage in informed and respectful dialogue, prioritising the well-being of the Nigerian people and the long-term sustainability of the agricultural sector.
