BE CAREFUL WITH GMO FOODS: A SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL EXAMINATION OF GENETIC MODIFICATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR NIGERIA By Eugene Nanven.
BE CAREFUL WITH GMO FOODS: A SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL EXAMINATION OF GENETIC MODIFICATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR NIGERIA By Eugene Nanven.
Over the past decade, Nigeria has witnessed an increasing wave of promotion and acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly in its agricultural and food sectors. These efforts are often framed as pathways to food security, pest resistance, and agricultural modernization. Yet, beneath the appealing surface lies a web of complex biological, genomic, ethical, and policy questions that deserve rigorous examination. Genetic modification is a deep interference with the molecular architecture of life itself, an intervention that, if not properly regulated, could have far-reaching consequences for human health, biodiversity, and national sovereignty in food production.
This article seeks to unpack the biology and genomics underlying GMO technology, evaluate its potential risks, and highlight why Nigeria must exercise caution, develop independent biosafety research, and avoid blind reliance on external narratives of biotechnology progress.
I am speaking from a place of study and experience, having gone through rigorous courses in Biomedical Technology and Genomic Studies with Bar-Ilan University in Israel and Princeton University in the United States. Those programs opened my eyes to the depth of what genetic modification really means, how it works at the level of DNA, and how small changes at that level can echo through entire generations.
To understand the implications of GMO foods, one must first understand how they are created. Traditional breeding relies on the natural recombination of genetic material between related species. Genetic modification, by contrast, involves the direct alteration of an organism’s genome using molecular tools that allow scientists to insert, delete, or silence specific genes, often from completely unrelated species.
Let me give you a little deeper detail about how this is done, it might be a bit hard but don’t worry, its just this paragraph. The process begins with the isolation of a target gene that encodes a desired trait, such as pest resistance or delayed ripening. Molecular biologists then employ techniques such as recombinant DNA technology or CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to insert this gene into the genome of a recipient organism. The insertion vector, often a plasmid or a viral vector, is used to deliver the foreign DNA into the host cell. Once integrated, this new gene becomes part of the organism’s genetic material and can be passed down to subsequent generations.
However, I must say that this integration is not a natural process. It involves breaking and rejoining DNA strands at specific loci, and sometimes, unpredictable locations. Although CRISPR and related systems allow for precision, off-target effects remain a significant concern. Even a single unintended mutation can alter gene expression, affect regulatory sequences, or create unforeseen interactions between metabolic pathways.
At the genomic level, the insertion of foreign DNA can disrupt native gene networks and epigenetic regulation. Epigenetics, the chemical modifications that control how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence, is a delicate system influenced by nutrition, environment, and cellular signaling. Introducing new genetic material may alter these regulatory mechanisms in ways not fully understood.
For instance, gene silencing or epigenetic drift can occur when introduced genes interfere with natural methylation patterns or histone modifications. In some animal models, transgenic constructs have triggered unintended gene activation or suppression of crucial pathways related to immunity and metabolism. The long-term impact of such changes on humans consuming these foods remains a topic of active research, but the current body of literature suggests that the safety profile of GMOs is not universally conclusive.
Moreover, horizontal gene transfer, the movement of genetic material across species boundaries poses another concern. There is evidence that fragments of plant DNA can survive digestion and enter mammalian circulation, though whether these sequences integrate into the genome is still debated. Nonetheless, the possibility underscores the need for deeper study into how constant dietary exposure to transgenic DNA might influence human genetic stability.
A major biomedical concern regarding GMO foods lies in the realm of immunology and metabolism. When foreign genes are expressed in plants, they code for novel proteins that the human immune system has never encountered before. These proteins can behave as potential allergens or toxins. While regulatory agencies conduct allergenicity assessments, these tests often rely on short-term animal studies or computational predictions that may not capture subtle, long-term effects on human immune tolerance.
Additionally, metabolic pathways in genetically modified plants may produce secondary metabolites, compounds not present in conventional varieties. Some of these may interfere with hormone signaling, gut microbiota composition, or enzymatic activity in consumers. The complexity of human physiology means that such interactions can manifest gradually, often across generations, making causal links difficult to trace without longitudinal genomic and epidemiological data.
Even more than human health, GMO crops influence the ecosystem in profound ways. Gene flow from GM plants to wild relatives can create “superweeds” resistant to herbicides, altering the natural selection dynamics of entire ecosystems. Similarly, the overuse of pest-resistant GMO crops has already led to adaptive resistance in insects, forcing farmers to use stronger chemicals, a cycle that defeats the original purpose of genetic modification.
From a genomic perspective, biodiversity is nature’s defense mechanism against systemic collapse. The homogenization of crops through patented GMO seeds erodes this diversity, reducing genetic resilience to diseases, drought, or future environmental shifts. Nigeria, with its rich native crop varieties, stands to lose irreplaceable germplasm if unregulated GMO adoption continues.
The introduction of GMOs in Nigeria has not occurred in a vacuum. It follows global economic patterns in which agricultural biotechnology is dominated by a handful of multinational corporations that control patents over seeds and associated agrochemicals. These patents mean that farmers are prohibited from saving or replanting seeds, leading to recurring dependency and financial vulnerability.
Nigeria’s National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) has approved several GMO crops, including Bt cotton and maize, despite concerns from civil society groups and independent researchers. The absence of a robust, independent research infrastructure capable of long-term genomic surveillance raises serious questions about Nigeria’s readiness to manage the unintended consequences of GM agriculture.
Furthermore, the push for GMO adoption often comes with promises of higher yield and pest resistance. Yet empirical studies from India, Argentina, and other regions reveal that initial productivity gains are often followed by soil degradation, pest resistance, and market monopolization. For a country still struggling with regulatory enforcement and scientific funding, Nigeria risks trading food sovereignty for technological dependency.
The ethical dimensions of GMO promotion cannot be separated from global power relations. Many biotechnology initiatives in Africa are financed or supported by international donors and foundations that shape agricultural priorities. While some interventions genuinely aim at addressing hunger, others may inadvertently align with commercial or geopolitical interests that prioritize profit and control over local empowerment.
Ethically, genetic modification demands informed consent at a societal level. Populations have the right to know what they are consuming, to choose between GMO and non-GMO foods, and to access transparent safety data. Unfortunately, in many developing countries, labeling standards are weak, and public awareness is minimal. This creates a situation where entire populations are effectively participating in long-term genetic experiments without explicit consent or comprehensive knowledge.
It is important to acknowledge that not all GMOs are inherently harmful. Genetic engineering, when responsibly applied, holds potential for medical and agricultural innovation. However, the absence of harm is not the same as proof of safety. Many studies that claim GMO safety are limited in duration, scope, and sample diversity. The complex interplay between diet, genetics, and environment means that subtle effects could take decades or generations to manifest.
In genomics, even minor alterations can have cascading effects. A single mutation in a regulatory gene can influence hundreds of downstream processes. Therefore, precaution should be the guiding principle, not fear, but prudence grounded in rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Nigeria’s scientific community must demand independent replication of foreign studies, local data collection on consumption patterns, and genomic monitoring of native species exposed to transgenic crops. Universities, rather than foreign corporations, should be at the forefront of these studies.
To ensure a safe and sovereign approach to biotechnology, Nigeria should:
1. Establish independent genomic laboratories to study local impacts of GMOs on health and environment.
2. Strengthen biosafety legislation and require transparent labeling of all genetically modified foods.
3. Encourage open scientific debate without corporate or political suppression of dissenting research.
4. Protect indigenous crop varieties through national seed banks and local breeding programs.
5. Develop public education programs on food genetics, ensuring that citizens understand what GMOs are and how to make informed choices.
The future of Nigerian food security should not depend solely on imported genes or foreign grants. Instead, it should rest on indigenous science, ethical governance, and genetic stewardship that respects both humanity and nature.
The debate over GMO foods is a call for complete science, science that includes transparency, ethics, and long-term genomic understanding. As Nigeria stands at the crossroads of biotechnology adoption, it must remember that every gene inserted into a crop is a decision that echoes through ecosystems and generations.
Being careful with GMO foods does not mean rejecting innovation. It means insisting on knowledge before consumption, independence before dependency, and safety before speed. The genome of humanity and its food sources are sacred architectures, shaped over millennia. To alter them without full comprehension is to play, quite literally, with the code of life. Nigeria must proceed, not in fear, but with wisdom, vigilance, and scientific sovereignty.
This is part of my effort in making the world a better place for all.
Thank you for reading.
