Should Nigeria accept Genetically Modified Seeds in the Agric Sector

[Tobi]

images.jpg (22.59 KiB) Viewed 22527 times

In recent times, there has been reports of GM food smuggling into Nigeria and concerned people offering different opinions in the media about it.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have genetic material (DNA) has been altered unnaturally by mating. The science behind this allows selected plant and animal genes to be transferred from one organism into another, or even between nonrelated species. The proponents of GM foods argue that we can use technology to advantages such as shortened crop cycles, bigger products, new crops, additional nutrient to improve health lower price, etc. Another arguement is to improve crop protection develop insect resistant plants against diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance for herbicides.

Consumers are generally not comfortable with GM foods. People think that conventional foods have established record of safety through the years and introducing modified foods may not give that length of trials. And that is why regulatory authorities spend a long time testing GM foods. Regulatory agencies test for direct health effects (toxicity), potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), nutritional or toxic properties, stability of the inserted gene, nutritional effects and unintended effects of the gene insertion.

Basically, in the world today GM crops are designed to tackle: resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards herbicides.

But should Nigeria accept GM foods? only recently, the National Biosafety Management Agency revealed that two shipments of genetically modified maize worth millions of dollars were discovered at a seaport in Lagos with 25,750 and 42,900 metric tons of genetically modified maize worth an estimated $3.7m and $6.1m respectively. The major problem here seem to be that any kind of GM foods can be smuggled in Nigeria including the onces rejected from other countries. Many countries do not support GM foods because their effects are generally unknown. Russia is one country whose officials openly reject GM foods. But can Nigeria withstand the onslaught from other countries? Only recently IITA Ibadan was in the spotlight fro trailing GM cassava. Scientists say GM foods are safe but many disagree. Many supporters point to the fact that humans have been genetically modifying food by selective breeding from time immemorial and that just wasn't high tech as today. Also, many foods are already GM. For example majority of the maize grown in the US is GM much of which is exported around the world.

Should Nigeria embrace GM foods like some countries and set up laws to regulate it and agencies to experiment its effects and license it like NAFDAC does for drugs? or should we reject it totally? If we reject it totally can our natural foods produce enough to compete? Or can we trust our people not to go and import these GM for financial gain? How do we make sure only organic food comes in.

I think we should accept GM foods, strengthen our monitoring systems to ensure only world certified processes are involved in testing and distributing them.

images.jpg (22.59 KiB) Viewed 22527 times

[MustyJ]

Nice write up. I don't agree we should accept genetic modified seeds in Nigeria. The science behind it is not well understood any mistakes can cost lives. We can market our own products as organic foods as done on other countries. After all organic foods are very expensive

[Achi]

Great write up. We already eat GM foods with all these refined foods we import. Especially maize and soybeans. Like you suggested, regulation is the answer

[Tobi]

Great write up. We already eat GM foods with all these refined foods we import. Especially maize and soybeans. Like you suggested, regulation is the answer

What about seeds?

[Achi]

Great write up. We already eat GM foods with all these refined foods we import. Especially maize and soybeans. Like you suggested, regulation is the answer

What about seeds?

Seeds are a similar matter. Some stricter form of regulation is required. If we eat GM foods, what difference does it make to acquire the seeds from whence the food came. It's a tough debate and no clear answers. But GM foods are here already from animals (chickens etc) to seeds and fruits. Maybe others have a different view.

[MustyJ]

It's like Genetic Modification is for aesthetics too... It seems to me.

Israeli scientists develop more nutritious, colorful potatoes

Are you ready for violet-colored potatoes? How about orange tobacco? Researchers at Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science have figured out how to produce betalain pigments in plants and flowers that don’t normally have them. If you’re thinking, “Who needs violet tomatoes?” you should know that red-violet and yellow betalain pigments contain healthful antioxidant properties. They’re also the basis for natural food dyes for products such as strawberry yogurt. Antioxidant activity is 60 percent higher in betalain-producing tomatoes than in average ones, said Prof. Asaph Aharoni of Weizmann’s Plant and Environmental Sciences Department, who teamed up with Dr. Guy Polturak for the pigment research. “Our findings may in the future be used to fortify a wide variety of crops with betalains in order to increase their nutritional value,” he said.

https://potatonewstoday.com/2017/09/25/ ... atoes/amp/

[Achi]

Proponents of GM foods argue quite convincingly

New Genetically Engineered Corn Could Revolutionize Our Agriculture

corn-1200x798.jpg (187.39 KiB) Viewed 22473 times

New research shows how, with the addition of a bacterial gene, corn’s nutritional value can be efficiently enhanced. The gene enables corn, the largest commodity crop in the world, to produce methionine, a key amino acid essential for tissue repair and growth. By producing a staple crop that contains methionine, which is found in meat, millions of people all over the world who can’t afford to eat meat could improve their health through nutrition. This genetically engineered corn crop could also dramatically reduce worldwide animal feed costs.
Methionine is one of nine amino acids that are essential to human health. In addition to supporting tissue repair and growth, it strengthens nails and improves the skin’s flexibility and tone. Methionine also contains sulfur which aids cells in absorbing zinc and selenium, and guards against both pollution and premature aging. Amino acids occur in our food, so nutritionally inadequate diets often lack sufficient amounts of one of more of these critical compounds.
Animals, including livestock, also need methionine. This means that billions of dollars’ worth of methionine must be added to field corn seed annually, since corn lacks the amino acid in nature. For example, according to the study, chicken feed is typically made up of corn and soybeans, so it is typically lacking methionine, the essential sulfur-containing amino acid.

It is a costly, energy-consuming process,” Waksman Institute of Microbiology director and study senior author Joachim Messing said in a press release. “Methionine is added because animals won’t grow without it. In many developing countries where corn is a staple, methionine is also important for people, especially children. It’s vital nutrition, like a vitamin.”
ADDING METHIONINE TO CORN

Within this study, researchers inserted a gene from the E. coli bacterium into the genome of the corn plant and then produced several generations of the modified corn. The E. coli enzyme — 3?-phosphoadenosine-5?-phosphosulfate reductase (EcPAPR) — spurred methionine production in the leaves of the plant rather than throughout the plant. This was an intentional choice, with the aim of avoiding an accumulation of toxic byproducts. It was enough to prompt a 57 percent increase in methionine in the corn kernels, and observations of chickens who ate the corn as part of a feeding trial showed that the modified plant was nutritious.
“To our surprise, one important outcome was that corn plant growth was not affected,” Rutgers University-New Brunswick Department of Plant Biology professor and study co-author Thomas Leustek said in the press release. This will be a tremendous boon to subsistence farmers in the developing world, Leustek pointed out: “Our study shows that they wouldn’t have to purchase methionine supplements or expensive foods that have higher methionine.”

This is another example of the ways that genetically modified foods can actually be helpful from a public health perspective, despite the generally negative reputation they endure. Scientists are focusing on food to help farmers grow more food efficiently and with a decreased environmental impact. The important thing to note from this research is that we should remain vigilant about the long-term effects of our actions, and not let blanket fears stand in the way of progress.

https://futurism.com/new-genetically-en ... riculture/

[MustyJ]

Update! I thought it would have been nice to know what the policy is, let it be debated and thoroughly understood before implementation.

Nigeria approves new policy for GMO regulator

The Federal Executive Council, FEC, on Thursday approved a revised policy on the National Bio-Safety Management Agency.

The Minister of State for Environment, Ibrahim Jibrin, told State House correspondents that the agency is charged with the direct responsibility of monitoring and supervising the use of genetically modified organisms in the country.

Mr. Jibrin, who spoke after the conclusion of the FEC meeting, said people often mistake the agency for another agency in the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology: National Bio-Technology Development Agency.

He said while the first one under the Ministry of Science and Technology is charged with the responsibility of doing research work and making a breakthrough on many things in the country, the national bio-safety agency under the Ministry of Environment, is a regulatory agency with the responsibility of checking the type of genetically modified food that could come into the country.

He said the regulation is to ensure that they are safe for consumption either for animals or humans and to ensure also that they do not displace our traditional products that are found locally in the country”.

Mr. Jibrin said the policy memo which was approved Thursday has been around since 2006, predating even the establishment of the agency.

The minister said the agency was established by an act of parliament in the year 2015.

“So the policy has been in place before even the enactment of the law to establish the agency and because it has been around for more than a decade, we felt it is necessary to review it and bring it up to date and face the present reality so that as technology is developing rapidly, the policy framework that should be put in place to regulate and monitor effectively to ensure that our citizens are safe is what motivated us to bring this and thank God, the Council has approved the policy memo.

“So we have a new policy and the Attorney General of the Federation will take the necessary steps to bring it into force,” he said without disclosing the specific details of the policy.

[bonama]

And the discussion continues

Groups criticise Nigerian agency on genetically modified cassava

Some civic groups have criticised a decision of a government regulatory agency on genetically modified cassava.

The Health of Mother Health Foundation, HOMEF, and its partners said the decision by the Nigerian Biosafety Management Agency, NBMA, to grant permission for “Confined Field Trials, CFT, of genetically modified, GM, cassava (AMY3 RNAi Transgenic lines)” was condemnable.

Read the full statement by HOMEF below.

The Health of Mother Health Foundation, HOMEF, and a coalition of Civil Society Organisations, have condemned the granting of a permit to the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA, and ETHZ Plant Biotechnology Lab in Zurich to carry out Confined Field Trials, CFT, of genetically modified, GM, cassava (AMY3 RNAi Transgenic lines) in Ibadan by the Nigerian Biosafety Management Agency, NBMA.

NBMA said it issued this permit despite HOMEF’s 37 pages objection supported by 87 organisations, outlining why this classic staple crop should not be toyed with by modern agricultural biotechnology merchants.

Among our concerns is the fact that the genetic engineering technique used by IITA and ETZ to product this cassava has never been approved anywhere else in the world. This effectively makes Nigeria a testing field for risky, unregulated technologies.

The timeframe given by NBMA for comments was 27th July, 2017 – 24th August, 2017. The approval for the GM cassava was given by NBMA to IITA and ETHZ on the 22nd of September 2017, less than a month after they advertised for comments. We sent our 37 pages objection to NBMA on the 21st of August 2017. NBMA sent a letter via email acknowledging our objection on the 20th of September 2017.

In their letter, they stated amongst other things that our objections had been noted and that they will review the application holistically. On September 22, 2017, NBMA granted the approval to IITA, a mere two days after they acknowledged our objection and stated that they will look into it.

The issuance of the permit became public from the press Statement issued by IITA titled: ‘IITA to carry out field trials of GM cassava’ on December 19, 2017. What a gimmick! Why did they not out rightly state in their letter to us that they had made up their minds already to give their approval instead of giving the false impression that they are considering our objection? What a charade!

Nnimmo Bassey, Director of HOMEF reacting to this development said, “Again, NBMA has demonstrated that they do not consider public opinion and objections. Their calls for comments are just window dressing and an insult to Nigerians. The approval granted IITA is the requiem for food safety in Nigeria. With NBMA’s propensity to approve whatever is thrown at them, and with its mercantilist bent of seeking approving fees and even having special fees for fast-tracking GMO approvals, Nigerians have to come to terms that we are being turned into guinea pigs without our consent. We roundly condemn the permit and denounce NBMA’s contempt to public opinion.”

Mr. Bassey adds, “The purpose for the GMO cassava experiment is shrouded in secrecy as the IITA and NBMA send conflicting signals as to whether the GMO cassava is being aimed for food or for industrial processes. It is regretted that NBMA cannot distinguish between being an agency that regulates biosafety and one that is set up to promote the technology.”

It should be recalled that NBMA had approved Monsanto’s BT cotton that Burkina Faso had rejected in 2016 for failure to deliver good quality yield. The Agency saw nothing wrong with saddling Nigerians with the burden of a failed technology. NBMA also approved Monsanto’s Maize application, that is accompanied with a cocktail of chemicals, including glyphosate formulations which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a sub unit of the World Health Organisation said is likely to cause cancer. In California, it is mandated that glyphosate be clearly labelled as a cancer-causing agent. A new study, published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, has found that (Glyphosate) Roundup caused disturbances in an important soil fungus (Aspergillus nidulans) at the cellular level at doses far below the recommended agricultural application rate. But NBMA sees nothing wrong with Glyphosate.

Mariann Bassey- Orovwuje, Chair of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) said “We are on the wrong train, with a wrong driver heading to a doubtful destination.”

In our objection to the GM Cassava application that was sent to NBMA we noted that the Applicants backed their application for a novel technology in 2017 with vastly outdated publications, including ones published in 1974, 1978 and 1984. We queried what environmental impact assessment including baseline surveys was done by IITA and ETZ to support their claims of absence of wild varieties as well on possible health impacts.

Commenting on the level of scholarship backing the application, Nnimmo Bassey said, “It is alarming that IITA has not done any study on this sensitive subject but is content to present a writing based on obsolete books or rather relying on their partners in Switzerland for information and expertise.”

The groups added that the Applicants are testing AMY3 RNAi lines RNAi, a technique that is novel – and although there is no experience with such GE plants in Nigeria as of yet, it is known that there are separate risk issues associated with this technology and only few RNAi based plants have been commercialized – typically in the US in commodity crops that serve primarily as animal feed.
The groups are urging the Nigerian government to investigate the process in which NBMA had been issuing permits including the ones issued to Monsanto[v], NABDA[vi] and now IITA/ETZ. They note with disquiet that the claim by the applicants that no cassava plant from the experimental field trail will be consumed is very deceptive. It will be almost impossible to rule out surreptitious acquisition of the stem-cuttings and the likelihood of unlawful harvest by locals who had always accessed improved cassava varieties from IITA.

The Applicants claim that the CFT is ongoing scientific research and not for experimental release or of a commercial product. The possibility of contamination of cassava cultivar in Ibadan exists because of this CFT. All over Oyo state in Nigeria, cassava is an allogamous plant, which means there is 100% chance of out crossing. Insects pollinate cassava and this GM cassava will contaminate local farmers’ varieties or other varieties cultivated for other purposes in the locality.

According to the groups, the stability of the traits involved as well as the potential for gene flow, and the risks posed by this GM cassava to farmers, consumers, economy, environment and lots more remain unknown.

“The capture and manipulation of our staple crops is taking a steep colonial track and the colonisation of our food s and culture spells a grave danger that government must be awake to. Platitudes from NBMA are worthless and must be treated with ample caution,” urged Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, Convener of Nigerians against GMOs.

More so, there is serious lack of capacity within Nigeria to adequately control and monitor the human and environmental risks of GM crops. Further, there is little or no testing of any food material and products in Nigeria for GMOs, or the monitoring of their impact on the environment including water resources. GMOs are regulated because their safety is in doubt. Why NBMA will continue to issue permits without due consideration to the Nigerians, our environment and health is something our government need to look at critically.

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/agricult ... ssava.html

[Achi]

The proponents of GMOs have another fact in their arsenal

New research suggests GMO corn produces higher yields
Data offers compelling reasons to keep an open mind about GMOs.

About half of Americans think genetically modified foods (GMOs) are neither better for your health nor worse, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey. About 39 percent of those surveyed said they believed GMOs are worse for your health, but they had differing views about severity. Broken down, 20 percent believe the health risk of GMOs is high, 15 percent believe it is medium and 4 percent believe the risk is low. (Of the remaining responders, 10 percent said GMOs are better for your health and 3 percent didn't answer.)

These are opinions based on what the respondents know about GMOs, which isn't always a lot. In this case, 29 percent said they had heard "a lot" about GMOs, 52 percent said they had heard "a little," and 19 percent said they had heard "nothing at all."

That's also very relevant to the scientific survey I'm about to dive into. Those who look at this type of data say that because Americans have limited knowledge about GMOs, the public opinions revealed in this survey are "soft," meaning they're more likely to change over time. I can say the same about myself. Although my knowledge may be more in-depth than the average person, I'm neither a scientist nor a farmer. What I know comes from studies and writings from sources that I consider trusted. Because of this, my opinions have changed over time.

Call me GMO-curious
I was completely anti-GMO a decade ago, based on what I knew at the time. I wouldn't say I'm pro-GMO now, so let's call me GMO-curious. I definitely have my concerns, but I can't ignore science. There is scientific evidence that GMOs offer some advantages, including findings from a recent study from researchers at the Institute of Life Sciences in Pisa, Italy and the University of Pisa that mined through 21 years of field data on genetically engineered GE corn.

(GMO seems to be the acronym that the public is most familiar with, but GE seems to be the acronym that scientists work with. They can be used interchangeably.)

Published in Scientific Reports, the study analyzed 76 pieces of peer-reviewed literature from 1996 to 2016 that looked at yield, grain quality, non-target organisms (NTOs), target organisms (TOs), and soil biomass decomposition of GE corn crops. The conclusion? There is "strong evidence that GE maize performed better than its near isogenic line." Grain yields for the GE corn was 5.6 to 24.5 percent higher than the non-GE corn. There were also lower concentrations of mycotoxins (−28.8 percent), fumonisin (−30.6 percent) and thricotecens (−36.5 percent), which are contaminating toxins produced by fungi.

There are other findings from the review of the studies that spanned 21 years that contribute to my GMO-curiosity. The research found that GMO corn also had protein, lipid and fiber concentrations that "resembled" that of non-GMO corn. And, when it came to TOs and NTOs — basically the insects that the GMOs were supposed target verses the insects they weren't supposed to target — the research suggested that "GE crops had little to no effects on insect populations not targeted by the genetic alterations, suggesting no substantial effect on insect community diversity," according to Journalist's Resource.

The researchers did find that insects may develop resistance to GE crops, and therein lies one of the biggest concerns I still have about these crops — the use of pesticides, particularly those that contain glyphosate, a chemical found in pesticides that is believed to be a carcinogen. Many GMO crops are engineered to resist glyphosate, and since 1996 when GMO crops were introduced, the amount of glyphosate used on crops has grown 15-fold.

We still have the right to know
This recent study of the 76 peer-reviewed pieces didn't touch upon the amount of glyphosate residue found on these GMO crops. In 2016, the FDA said it was going to test foods for glyphosate residue, which is so prevalent that it's showing up in the eggs of chickens raised organically (glyphosate can't be used on USDA organic foods). It will be interesting to see what the findings of those tests are and if the FDA makes any recommendations to decrease usage based on those results.

In the meantime, glypohaste has been linked to cancer, diabetes, autism, obesity, heart disease and more, and because of this, the public has the right to know if the food they're eating contains GMO ingredients so they can decide for themselves.

In 2016, then President Obama signed a law that required GMO ingredients to be labeled — sort of. Instead of clear labeling on food packaging, the law allows for an electronic or digital link disclosure, a scannable QR code or a URL leading to a website that would take consumers to digital information about a product's ingredients. This law has not been implemented yet and may never be.

At the time of signing, the Secretary of Agriculture was given two years to come up with the rules, regulations and standards for the link disclosure. Since then, there has been a change in administration, and the entire GMO labeling could be dead under the current administration, according to Trace Gains. The Right to Know fight is far from over.

The debate about the health benefits of GMOs is far from over, too. We have only 21 years of data, and there are still many unknowns, partly because there has not been enough time to see what the long-term effects are on people's health or the planet's health.

I have a feeling I'm going to be GMO-curious for a while

https://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating ... her-yields