Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Nigerian Bio-Safety Law: An Open Door forContamination?
Being a Presentation by Mr. Ambassador Onoja, President, Next Generation Youth InitiativeInternational (negyii)
Suites 110-112, Adoga Suites, Branch Obu –Otukpa,
Ogbadibo Local Government Headquarter, BenueState, at the
3rd Annual National Consultationon Environment
(November 16-19, 2010, Abuja,) Theme:
The Politics of Hunger
Organized byEnvironmental Rights Action/Friends of the EarthNigeria
With Support from
NORAD
OXFAMNOVIB
TWN Tel: 08039681516, 08076499910, 08182008918.
Email: [email protected],[email protected],
1.0 Introduction
It has been widely accepted that the Legislature constitutethe engine room of democracy in any society where democracy isbeing practiced. This I believe derives from two principalloci: one as a body that makes laws for the governance, peace,security, survival, development and national and internationalcompetitiveness of the country concerned among others.Secondly, the Legislature constitutes the majority arm ofdemocracy and is the direct representative of the variousconstituencies of the people that power truly belongs, in ademocracy. Therefore, they occupy and play very critical rolein the life of a nation in view of their function and inputsin a democracy.
However, Bio-safety law which is concerned with law about arange of measures, actions, policies and procedures for
regulation and protection of plants and animals and otherliving organisms of nature, its management and appropriationunder safe conditions for national consumption and developmentwhile avoiding or minimizing potential risks to theenvironment, human and animal lives, even the socio-economicrights of the people. This seems to be taken with so muchlevity that I like to ascribe more to the hype aboutgenetically modified organisms (GMOs) driven by worldcapitalism (globalization) than ignorance on the part ofNigerians even though it is a factor that is pronounced.
Nigeria generally has been lacking in articulated and coherentpractices and management of its biodiversity and theenvironment in general. Therefore, a law about Nigeria’s bio-safety demands a careful working and strong foundation, thebasis which can guarantee national security and sustainabledevelopment. Key focus of interest in bio-safety law areenvironmental protection and safety, safety and the health ofthe people, animals and plants, and the socio-economic andcultural rights of the people among others. Therefore, the lawhas far reaching importance and implications to the citizensand national security, much so that we are in an era of a mostglobally scary phenomenon of ‘threatened environment andspecies’ and climate change. To do anything to add to thisprecarious situation or rather the grim state of Nigeria’senvironmental report, is to say the least a great disserviceto nationhood and sustainable development. This appears to bethe context in which Nigeria is entrapped by the ‘goings on’in and outside the National Assembly about the Bio-Safety Billbefore our Legislators.
Developing countries are increasingly faced with the prospect ofthe introduction of geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) into their domain. These will entercountries of the Third World in greater abundance as the movement
by civil society groups, consumers, manufacturers and retailersin the developed countries to reject these GMOs and productsgains greater momentum. It is now widely acknowledged thatserious potential risks are presented by GMOs. This prompted theinternational community to commence negotiations for a Bio-Safetyprotocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Butthese negotiations have been victim of global politics; however,the Cartagena convention provides some milestones. Consequently,there are yet strong regulations in place to deal especially withthe movement across boundaries of these GMOs and their products.Therefore, it behoves nation states to take appropriate actionsto protect her people and interest. This informed the need fornational laws to exclusively address the several critical aspectsof GMOs and its Bio-Safety Laws.
1.1 GMOs – What are they?
A brief background about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)which form the crux or central issue of contention in the billis important and necessary to put the context of this paper inright perspectives. GMOs otherwise known as geneticmodification, to some extent is a modern technology thatallows scientists to create animals, plants and micro-organisms through un-natural and non-traditional manipulationsof genes of plants and animals i.e. a process that willnaturally or traditionally not be possible. For example,natural breeding permits the natural mating of its kind or thesame species. This is a process that man is not onlycontradicting but violating as well.
This whole process comes under genetic engineering (GE) toutedto be the key to agricultural and food productivity implosionto save our nation and the world from hunger and underutilization of our agro-allied potentials. Good thinking! But
there is great danger if it’s one-way traffic thinking. Howabout the other sides to it?
Genetic Engineering (GE) evolution which gave birth tobiotechnology is a process that entails the manipulation ofplants’ and animals’ organism at the micro-cellular levelwhich allows Di-ribonucleic Acid (DNA) from one type orspecies of organism to be introduced into another unrelatedorganism to create entirely another new organism (such as fromanimal to plant or plant to animal and the likes) and usuallyin commercial quantity. For instance, potatoes plant andchicken cannot breed in the natural or traditional sense butin the laboratory, scientists can manipulate the genes ofthese different species to create an entirely new organismknown as genetically modified organism (GMO).
2.0 Motivation for GMOs – why the drive for GMOs?
Bio-technologists and promoters of GMOs (especially themultinational corporations - MNCs) have premised theirmotivation on the central issues of increased agriculturalproductivity and undertaker for the question of hunger andfood insecurity which threatens our world especially thedeveloping countries of Africa, Asia and the Latin America andCaribbean. The promise by its promoter that geneticallymodified crops were safe, and would provide better quality,drastic drop in food prices, food security for third worldcountries and its environmental sustainability are all provinga myth now as much of these are yet substantiated. To say suchpractice is an extension of conventional agriculture andanswer to increased agricultural productivity and our questfor national food security and taming of hunger is asquestionable as its presupposition.
The real issues and motivation behind GMOs is an orchestratedconspiracy of multinational companies (MNC) from the developed
world and their penchant for imperialistic exploitation ofdeveloping countries, and those of other third world countriesthrough the exalted practice of brazen capitalism hawked allaround in our markets in the coated brand of globalization andits questionable theory of trade liberalism. The sacrifice ofhuman ideals for excessive profit and the power of the marketeconomy is the new game plan of the exploitation logic (neo-colonialism) and the new frontiers for contest and test ofpolitical power in international relations and diplomacy amongnation states; and the developed countries in their deftnesswill always do ‘our people in’. At most they dangle somecarrots for our bureaucratic chiefs if they mistakenly failedto fool them. This is a seamless context for exemplificationof Andre Gunder Frank (1929-2005) dependency theory andArcher’s argument that the underdevelopment of Africa is thedevelopment of the developed nations and the development ofthe developed nations is the underdevelopment of Africa.
Nigeria is potentially a very big market for GMOs with about160m population, an estimated gross domestic product of overṨ300bn as at 2007 (World Almanac Book, 2009) and over half ofthe population and trading block of West Africa. ThereforeNigeria is a land of great opportunity for profiteering forGMOs and this is why their promoters and Lobbyists haverefused to rest unless Nigeria is captured. The whole gameplan is capitalism and the profit-craze.
2.1 Brief Global Overview of the State of GMOs Report
Succinctly and factually put, “Global reports about GMOs have notonly clearly shown that they are a failure but damning andevidently fraudulent and harmful to the environment and humanbeings”. Substantiating the above statement, evidences abound inplethora about GMOs failures across both developing and thedeveloped countries which are the originator and where GMOs arewidely practiced (with exception to Argentina, a heavy GMO base).
Several GMOs failures have been recorded in Europe among whichare the cases of:
Monsanto High Lysine GM maize (LY 038) was a failure due tosafety concerns,
the case of Bayer A.G of Germany sued by U.S. Farmers forcontamination of their farms with GM rice,
the case of food chain contamination by GMOs in 2006 with GMrice (liberty link 601) as adjudged by African Civil SocietyCoalition. Monitoring activities of local chapters ofFriends of the Earth (FOE) in Cameroun, Nigeria, SierraLeone and Ghana in association with the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) revealed GMO riceunapproved for consumption in August 2006 because ofcontamination.
In a report authored by William Engdahl and published byGlobal Research in August 2010 titled “GeneticallyManipulated Crops: GMO Catastrophe in the USA – A Lesson forthe World”, he submitted that from the European Union (EU)to China and United States of America (the laboratory ofGMOs), there is palpable opposition and reservation aboutGMOs. He reported and I quote “Before things get too faralong, they will do well to take a closer look at the worldGMOs test laboratory, the USA. There GMO crops are anythingbut beneficial. Just the opposite”
In the second paragraph of the report, he averred “what iscarefully kept out of the Monsanto and other agribusinesspropaganda in promoting GMO crops as alternative to theconventional is the fact that in the entire world until thepresent, all GMO crops have been manipulated and patented fortwo things-to be resistant or “tolerant” to the patentedhighly toxic herbicide glyphosate chemicals that Monsanto and
the others (especially Syngenta and Aventis crop science nowBayer AG of Germany through acquisition) force farmers to buyas condition for buying their patented GM seeds. The secondtrait is that GMO seeds that have been engineered geneticallyto resist some specific insects. Contrary to public relationsmyths promoted by agribusiness giants in their own selfinterest, there exist not one GMO seed that provide a greaterharvest yield than conventional, nor one that requires lesstoxic chemical herbicides. That is for the simple reason thatthere is no profit to be made in such”.
It is also worthy of note to draw our attention to theobservation of one prominent GMO opponent and Biologist, Dr.Mae-wan Ho of the Institute of Science in London. He notedthat companies such as Monsanto built into their seedsHerbicide Tolerance (HT) due to glyphosate-insensitive form ofthe gene coding for the enzyme targeted by the herbicide. Theenzyme is derived from soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens.Insect-resistance is due to one or more toxin genes derivedfrom the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). The USA whichstarted large scale farm of GMOs in 1997 especially insoybeans, maize and cotton has between 85-91% of area plantedwith these crops on about 171 million acres.
The ecological time bomb that came with GMO according to Ho isabout to explode. Over several years of constant applicationof patented glyphosate herbicides such as the Monsanto’sfamous and highly rated RoundUp, and the new herbicide-resistant “super-weeds” have evolved nature’s response to man-made attempt to violate it. The super-weeds requiresignificantly more not less herbicide to control it. Now theworld is witnessing what can be referred to currently as the“Giant Super-Weeds Plague” – Super weeds that can’t be killedas ABC Television, a major U.S. national network tagged it.
Palmer pig weed, a variety of super-weed can grow up to 2.4m high,withstands severe heat and prolonged draught, and producesthousands of seeds and root system that drains away nutrientsfrom crops. If left unchecked, it takes over a whole fieldunder one year and some farmers have already been forced toabandon their land. Currently infested areas in U.S. includeArkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Mexico,Kentucky, Tennessee, Albama, Missouri and Mississippi amongother emerging ones. Weed Scientists at University of Georgiaestimated 23% cotton yield reduction with two palmer-weedplants in every 6m length row of cotton.
William Engdahl submitted that the pro-GMOs and pro-agribusiness U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has beenreported lying about the true state of U.S. crop harvestpartly to hide the grim reality and to prevent an explosiverevolt against GMOs in the world GMOs largest market but forhow long they will succeed, only time will tell.
There is the ‘hidden game’ of RoundUp toxic danger beingplayed by GMOs promoters. Glyphosate is the most widely usedherbicide in the U.S.A. and the world at large, patented andsold by Monsanto since 1970s under the trade name RoundUp. Itis a mandatory part of buying GMO seeds from Monsanto.According to details in a book titled “Seeds of Destruction: TheHidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation” by F.William Engdahl, GMOcrops and patented seeds were developed in the 1970s withsignificant financial support from the pro-eugenicsRockefeller Foundation by what were essentially chemicalcompanies-Monsanto Chemicals, Du Pont and Dow Chemicals. Allthe three were involved in the scandal of the highly toxicAgent Orange used in Vietnam as well as Dioxin in the 1970s,but lied to cover up the true damage done to its ownemployees, as well as to civilian and military populationexposed.
It may interest us to note that the untold devastating effectsof the Agent Orange on Vietnamese till date especially thedeformities being experienced by children is a current subjectof international human rights abuse and high diplomacy whichthe U.S.A. is fighting to contain internationally by wavingsome olive branch to Vietnam.
Farmers’ right of freedom and choice is usurped in theconspiracy of these multinational corporations’ use of theirpatented GMO seeds to force the purchase of their agriculturalchemicals such as RounndUp because farmers must sign a legalcontract with Monsanto in which it stipulates that onlyMonsanto RoundUp pesticide or herbicide may be used. Farmersare therefore trapped up in buying both the new seeds fromMonsanto each harvest and buying the toxic glyphosate.
Gilles-Eric Seralini, a Molecular Biologist in a study alongwith a Team led by him from the France University of Caenfound that Monsanto’s RoundUp contained a specific inertingredient called polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA) which isvery deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cordcells than even the glyphosate itself. When asked for detailsof the content of RoundUp apart from glyphosate, Monsantorefused to release the information hiding under the cover of‘Proprietary rights”. Further findings by the study showedthat even at a hundred thousand times dilution of theconcentration applied to farms, it remains damaging to humancells at all levels of concentration.
Deception through advertisement of Glyphosate and RoundUp byBiotechnology Institute of America promoting GMO crops as weedwarriors says “Glyphosate and RoundUp are less toxic thantable salt (NaCl2)”. GMO has increased pesticide use by highcosts in the region of about £320 million pounds along withthe weed trouble (www.GlobalResearch.ca).
Farmers in the U.S.A. are now turning away from GMOs in angerand frustration to conventional organic farming which has veryhigh demand currently where as it was found that those toutedadvantages of GMOs over conventional agriculture are meremyths.
In the United Kingdom, GMOs is under a ban which the newconservative-liberal coalition government of David Cameroon istrying to lift currently and I suspect its borne by theactivity of international lobbyists in favour of GMO throughthe fiery force of capitalism, the faculty of which are themultinational corporations (MNCs).
In another research by Rady Ananda, published in GlobalResearch in August 2010 titled “ Mounting Opposition to GMOCrops: The World ‘s People Reject Genetic Pollution of Foodand the Environment”, it reported the experience in France howsixty (60) people recently uprooted an open field of GMOgrapevines in the presence of helpless French police.
GMO grapevines destroyed by sixty (60) French Citizens even as helpless French Police watch (AFP)
In Spain, two GMO fields were destroyed recently as well. The same incidence happened in India at the millennial cusp where Bacillum Thuringiensis (BT) cotton was burned up by citizens.
Haitians even in the midst of its crisis refused 475 tons offood aid from Monsanto at the wake of the Earthquake referringto it as “food poison” while demonstrating against it.
GMO Sugar beets were banned by a U.S. Federal Court by JudgeJeffrey S. White who revoked an approval by USDA of the GMOsugar beet while allowing for its planting only this year. U.SSupreme Court is addressing the GMO scourge and GMOs are beenderegulated in the U.S.
The clear message is that public opinions and opposition on GMcrops has grown in recent years as more evidence surface thatDi-ribonucleic Acid (DNA) altered crops:
- Require massive chemical inputs which destroy localdiversity and poison the water table
- Cross-pollinate with natural and weedy crops
- Create super and un-killable weeds and much more
- Have shown to destroy or cause organ damage, sterility,diabetes and obesity in mammals among other harms caused byGMOs.
This background is fundamental to understanding the context andlogic of my arguments and position on the Nigeria’s Bio-SafetyBill; hence the necessity and rigour of my doing this. Apart, weare in a world that is a global village and geographical bordersare fast disappearing while the line between domestic andinternational law are getting thinner or fast disappearing.
3.0 Nigerian Bio-Safety Bill – An Overview and Matters Arising
This is the first time Nigeria is settling down to make acomprehensive bill on bio-safety after fifty years of itsexistence as a sovereign state. I stand to be corrected byanybody who disagrees with this. This clearly underscores ourneglect and poor attitude to environmental practices andmanagement. Be that as it may, it is a welcome developmentbecause a nation grows in phases, after all the greater life ofNigeria as a nation was lived in despotism and there was littlebreathing space for democracy and the building of democraticinstitutions.
Now that we have the opportunity to craft a bio-safety law, itbehoves us to do a thorough work, at least lay a strongfoundation because of the enormous implication of the environmenton the lives of the people both in terms of health concerns,safety of the ecosystem and socio-economic activities especiallysustainable agricultural practices and its implication forsustainable development, national security and competitiveness.We must note that no matter how we run away from agriculture orneglect it, it remains the mainstay of Nigerian economy and thefuture competitiveness of this country, I dare say cannot bedivorced from agriculture.
A general overview of the bio-safety bill before the NationalAssembly shows a clear GMOs permissiveness in all ramification.The crux of the matter is that the lobbyists or the pro-GMOs footsoldiers have succeeded in making our Legislature look in onedirection against all other directions: that GMOs will boostagricultural productivity and provide answers to Nigeria’s“hunger” and “food security needs”. But is there true hunger inNigeria? And if yes, did we really optimize our conventionalagricultural practices and used our resources well? The answerhere is factually a capital No. The ‘hunger’ in Nigeria is “Manfoisted hunger”. We have all we need to feed ourselves and fed
well with surplus to spare other nations but our resources havenot been managed well hence this gap and the frustrations manycitizens of our dear country are grappling with today. This isunfortunate and it is hope that our Leaders will rise to theoccasion to address these challenges.
The logic of conviction for our Legislature and major concern inthe proposed bill is quantitative while undermining thequalitative. However, logic and reason put qualitative ahead ofquantitative and only few may not know where the substance lies.This one directional flow of traffic or overconcentration madethe critical issues of safety of the environment, health of thepeople and animals, sustainable agricultural development andother critical socio-economic factors to be given inadequateconsideration or undermined. This is dangerous given the starkreality of the importance of the environment and issues of safetychallenges associated with its abuse as the world is being forcedto agree and accept now – there is an impending and globallyfearsome aftermath of environmental abuse catastrophe emerging inthe phenomenal climate change which our world is yet to grapplewith its challenges.
Rather than all this GMOs permissiveness, it would have beenbetter or more appropriate like the manner of IBB’s IMF Loan of1986, for the issue of GMO to be thrown to open debate: Do weneed GMOs? And what are GMOs in the first place? I bet youmillions of Nigerians are ignorant and do not know what GMOs areincluding many literate Nigerians. This is the irony and mostunfortunate side.
3.1 Matters Arising
(i) Public Participation – Public participation is one ofthe key indices of democracy and when this is missing, there ismajor setback for democracy because public participation is theengine room of democracy. The public must be given adequate
notice of any application. They should also be given allinformation supplied by the applicant to the national competentauthority. Public consultation should precede the making of adecision. Sufficient time before a decision is reached should begiven to the public to allow for such consultation. Commentsgiven by the public must be taken into account in the decision-making and policy formulation process.
This all important bill can be said in all honesty to haveinadequate provision for public participation-sections 20(2) and21(1) and many other parts of the bill puts public participationas a matter of volition and probability and not matter ofresponsibility with the use of the word “may” in a plethora ofplaces in the bill. This was also demonstrated with the veryshort notice given (three days) for the public hearing on thebill.
(i) Precautionary Principle – the precautionaryprinciple is a ground norm in matters of safety andpublic health concerns especially where scientificcertainty is in doubt. The principle says “if an actionor policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to thepublic or to the environment, in the absence ofscientific consensus that the action or policy isharmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful fallson those taking the decision”.
The principle allows policy makers to make discretionarydecisions in situations where there is the possibility ofharm from taking a particular course of action or makinga certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge onthe matter is lacking.
The precautionary Principle Grid
Sources: http//upload.wikimedia.org/Wikipedia/en/f/f9/precautionary_principle.png.
The principle implies that there is a social responsibility toprotect the public from exposure to harm when scientificinvestigation has found a plausible risk. This protection can berelaxed if and only if further scientific findings emerge thatprovide sound evidence that no harm will result.
In the European Union, the precautionary principle is a statutoryrequirement.
(ii) Too early Acceptance – GMOs got a too quickacceptance. I am not convinced that even the Legislaturedid sufficient findings on GMOs and consideredsufficiently all the sides to it to take a balancedposition not to talk of getting the Nigerian peopleinformed and sensitized about it to envisage theircontributions on this matter. GMOs needs a nationalsensitization, education and debate by Nigerians whetherwe need GMOs or not; and under what conditions, when,where and how.
If this law is about the people and for the people andnot the exclusive of the Legislators and other fewinterests, then the input of the people who send theLegislators there in the first place should be given notjust attention but an attention that is qualified andseen as adequate and satisfactory.
(iii) Loose Regulation – The bill creates a very looseatmosphere for the National Bio-Safety Agency and theBio-Safety Committee and its other institutions tooperate. The composition of the Bio-safety Committeefalls short of standard creating room for conflict ofinterests while the critical issues of liability andredress are missing. The issues of liability and redressremain central in GMOs matters especially with Nigeria’sfirst hand attempt. Example; section 23 puts theconditions under which approval can be given for GMOs asprobability with the word “may” giving the approvingauthority power to approve if they like the face of theapplicant or have interest. The semantics around the billgenerally degrade the sense of responsibility andcommitment on the part of would-be GMO operators.
Unfortunately, these are the grounds on which liabilitycan be weighed before the law may convict or acquit inthe case of GMO accident or catastrophe.
(iv) Full disclosure of Information on Application –there should be a fundamental and statutory requirementfor full disclosure of information by all GMOs applicant.There has therefore to be an application for approval.This has to be accompanied by very comprehensiveinformation supplied by the applicant to allow for anadequate evaluation and assessment of any foreseeablerisks from allowing the activity in relation to the GMOor derived products. This I do not see as being stronglyreinforced in the proposed bill. Rather confidentialitywas attached to location of release – Section 22. This isunwarranted, even the European Union does not have suchconfidentiality.
This is a game plan of GMO proponents and lobbyists. Inthe case of Monsanto, this confidentiality clause wasused by them to evade with the non-full disclosure ofinformation about the components of its product RoundUpsuspected to have polyethoxylatedtallowamie (POEA).Gilles-Eric Seralini, a Molecular Biologist in a studyalong with a Team led by him from the France Universityof Caen found that Monsanto’s RoundUp contained aspecific inert ingredient called polyethoxylatedtallowamine (POEA) which is very deadly to humanembryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than eventhe glyphosate itself in the Monsanto RoundUp but theyescaped full disclosure on the ground of “proprietaryrights”.
(v) Risk Assessment - Before approval is given, therehas to be a risk assessment by an independent body ofexperts chosen from a wide range of disciplines. The riskassessment should be comprehensive, on a case by casebasis, and intended to deal with all the potential risksto the environment, animal and human health. The
guidelines, which must be adhered to, are to be clearlyset out in the relevant schedules. The risk assessment isbased on the precautionary principle, that is, theabsence of scientific evidence or certainty does notpreclude the decision makers from denying approval of theintroduction of the GMO or derived products if this maycause, or have a proven or theoretical potential to causeharm to biodiversity, ecosystems, or human, plant oranimal health.
(vi) Other critical Factors – The Cartagena protocolprovides for other key issues of capacity building,compliance, financial mechanism, handling, transport,packaging and identification, information sharing andmonitoring and reporting. Apart from these issues notbeing sufficiently captured or casually mentioned, thesefactors in addition to risk assessment must also be takeninto account before authorization is given. Thus theremust be a cost benefit assessment of the introduction ofthe GMO or derived product as well as an assessment ofits contribution to sustainable development. Any adversesocio-economic effects must also be considered andadequately to meet the need of public interest.
(vii) Firm’s Evidence of “No Risk” - Firm evidence of norisk essential; precautionary principle applied as well.No authorization may be given unless there is firmevidence that there are no risks posed to the environmentand human and animal health. This is a very stringentrequirement. As a fall-back position, the decision can bebased on the precautionary principle as set out earlierin this paper.
(viii) Graduation of Approval Process - Any approval givenshould be on a step by step basis. That is, it progresses
from activity that is contained, then to trials that arein the open before full-fledged release is authorized. Ateach stage, the risks should be monitored and reported.
(ix) Social Justice - The principle of social justiceconnotes that injustice to one man is injustice to allmen. The provision that only aggrieved applicant oraffected person can appeal against a decision by theAgency is not only faulty but undemocratic and underminesthe principle of social justice. It only goes tounderscore the hidden agenda about the GMOs game.Interested and affected parties should have the right ofappeal from the podium of social justice and protectionof public interest.
(x) Establishment of National Bio-Safety Committee andConflict of Interest – Section (4) of the bill whichdeals with the establishment of the National Bio-SafetyCommittee does not have any representative of theMinistry of Health and provides for inclusion of privatesector membership (“unqualified”). While the need forMinistry of Health Membership is central and critical,the “unqualified” private sector membership appears tocreate ground for “conflict of interest” as the activityto be to regulated are generally going to private sectordriven. A clarification, qualification and tidying up toremove ambiguity is compellingly necessary here – 4(2).
(xi) Semantic inadequacy – it is my humble submission andwith all sense of responsibility and moderacy that thebill is guilty of semantic inadequacies here and therewith some clauses, phrases and words that createsambiguity in interpretation, force of responsibility andunderstanding of the proposed bill such as “may”,“shall”, “evaluate”, “assess”, “measure”, “consist”,“contain” and the likes. These words do not have problem
on their own but the context in which they are used.Recall the difficult Nigerians and the judiciary faced ininterpreting section 144 & 145 of the 1999 constitutionin the recent political logjam in the nation’s bid toenforce political succession.
(xii) Labelling and Identification – Codex call for labelingof GMOs is very important and Nigeria shares in thisbelief with her endorsement of Codex. All GMOs must beidentified in a particular manner; and derived productsare required to be labelled in a prescribed manner.Further, the label must forewarn of any allergy that theGMO or derived product may cause. However, the clause inthe second schedule for the bill provides only for GMOslabels in the case of GMOs that are dangerous. GMOslabeling informs best practices and transparency. Thisthe bill should accommodate unconditionally.
(xiii) Provision for “No Confidentiality” – Confidentiality ofinformation or business secret has been a ground for GMOspromoters to hide and refuse to divulge information aboutGMOs that of great importance to public interest such asMonsanto does in the case of polyethoxylated tallowamine(POEA), a very harmful and deadly component of itsRoundUp product. No confidentiality of businessinformation can be claimed for information that isrequired for evaluation of foreseeable risks; nor can anyinformation be with-held which will impede the State inits monitoring, supervision or enforcement work, and muchmore such that bothers on public health and otherinterests. I believe if GMOs promoters are sure of thecomponents and advantages of their product, there shouldnot have any fear about disclosure of information or besecretive. After all, the same global capitalism andprofit rule of the new globalism preaches so much about
transparency, corporate governance and open and fulldisclosure of information in businesses. Is it turning toviolate same process it enunciated? This is thecontradiction and paradox common or associated withmodern capitalism – they make the rule and go elsewhereto violate it when it conflicts with the master rule ofProfit. The name of the game ends with Manipulation.
(xiv) Institutional Structures – the case and need forbuilding strong institutions is very critical because theabsence of this is one of the banes of the country. Thefoundation for this does not seem to be strong and wellarticulated in this bill. In the provision of the billfor institutional arrangements: the Ministry (and theMinister) who is to be in charge was not named orspecified (in this case the Minister of Environment by myview), the case of the Ministry of Agriculture orMinistry of Science and Technology is being named as thesupposed supervising ministry, the designation of thecompetent authority, the functions of this authority, andthe appointment of the independent body of experts areall issues the bill should and must make very clear.
(xv) Risk Management Provision – Clear risk managementprovisions with regard to the role of the state, GMOApplicant or Vendor and other Interested parties withrespect to risks in case of damage and emergency areloose and not strong. Risk management measures after theapproval or licensing, and at all times generally, shouldinclude the State taking measures to manage any risksthat may be posed by GMOs and their derived productsapart from the direct liability of the GMO Vendor. Thiscould involve subjecting the activity to adequate periodsof monitoring and evaluation (e.g. commensurate with itsgenerational time frame or life-cycle) before it isallowed to be released, prohibiting any product (example,those that contain antibiotic resistance labels),
ordering the cessation of any activity so that measuresmay be taken to prevent or limit harm and damage to humanand animal health and the environment while takingemergency and other mitigation measures.
4.0 Conclusion
I submit that I couldn’t have raised all the issues inthis paper but believe that some salient points that canmake the bill not to be an “all-permissiveness” for GMOscontamination in Nigeria have been raised. There islittle doubt that the ease with which GMOs are beingwelcome in Nigeria is an invitation to GMOs contaminationin Nigeria. The hype about GMOs which Nigeria is a victimbelieving that its touted gains are real is the handiworkof a grand international conspiracy and some interest tofleece our country with the fiery and invisible hands ofcapitalism and its profiting machines while furtheringour underdevelopment. After all, the touted gains of GMOsare a ruse when compared to the disadvantages that comewith them and available facts about the state of GMOsacross the world.
GMOs drive is no more than an international conspiracyto upgrade the power of market capitalism to do more harmto the economies of developing countries while the money-spinning power of the developed countries continue toloom large over the poor and wretched of the Earth in aglobal economy wired for the benefit of few and pain ofmany. The truth remains to be said that Nigeria does notneed GMOs neither is she a hungry nation nor a food in-secured country. The problem with Nigeria is lack ofprioritization, resource mismanagement, abuse and neglectof agriculture and failure of Leadership. With good
planning and sustainable agricultural practices, goodresource management, visionary and transformationalLeadership, Nigeria can feed well and still feed othernations through her agriculture while remaining a prideof the comity of nations.
The most regrettable thing about Nigeria’s drive for GMOsis the exclusion of the people from participation in theprocess. However, the people have the inalienable rightof participation and to make demand on the state fortheir continual engagement and participation in everyprocess of national development in a democracy; much moreso it is the people’s interest (public interest) that isthe subject matter and we must note that no matter howstrong is the state, the state is for the people, not thepeople for the state.
References
ERA/FoEN, (2004), “Genetically Modified Crops: theAfrican Challenge”, ERA/FoEN, Benin-City
F. William Engdahl, (2010), “Genetically ManipulatedCrops: the GMO Catastrophe in the USA. A Lesson for theWorld”. Being an Article published by Global Research(www.globalresearch.ca)
National Assembly, Nigeria, (2009), “Proposed Bill for anAct to provide for the Management of Biosafety and otherRelated Matters”, House of Representatives, Abuja Nigeria
Rady Ananda, (2010), “Mounting Opposition to GMO Crops:the World’s People Reject Genetic Pollution of Food andthe Environment”. Being an Article published by GlobalResearch (www.globalresearch.ca)
The World Almanac, (2009), “The World Almanac and Book ofFacts”, World Almanac Books, Pleasantville, New York10570 - 7000
World Bank, (2010), “World Development Report 2010:Development and Climate Change”, International Bank forReconstruction and Development/The World Bank, WashingtonDC 20433
