Posted on: Mon 28-07-2025

The debate surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture continues to provoke intense discussion globally, with stakeholders ranging from scientists to policymakers and the public weighing in on their safety, utility, and ethical implications. Despite a scientific consensus affirming the safety of GMO foods, public skepticism persists, fueled by concerns about health risks, environmental impact, and corporate control of the food supply. In Nigeria, where agriculture is a cornerstone of the economy, the GMO conversation is particularly pertinent. Yet, two key health organizations—the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) and the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives (NANNM)—have remained conspicuously silent on this critical issue, raising questions about their role in shaping public health policy and discourse.

Genetically modified crops, introduced commercially in the 1990s, are engineered to enhance traits such as pest resistance, drought tolerance, or nutritional value. According to the National Academy of Sciences and other major scientific bodies, GMO foods are as safe as conventional foods, supported by over 3,000 studies worldwide. However, public opinion often diverges sharply from this consensus. A 2015 Pew Research Center survey found that only 37% of the U.S. public considered GMOs safe, compared to 88% of scientists, highlighting a significant perception gap. In Nigeria, similar skepticism exists, with concerns about long-term health effects and environmental risks frequently cited by critics.

The global media landscape reflects this divide. Between 2018 and 2020, traditional media coverage of GMOs increased, while social media posts on the topic dropped by over 80%, suggesting a decline in public engagement but a persistent focus in formal discourse. Both traditional and social media have shown a trend toward more favorable coverage, yet polarized voices—particularly from anti-GMO activists—continue to amplify concerns about corporate influence and ecological harm. In Nigeria, the approval of GMO crops like Bt cowpea and cotton has sparked debates about food security and farmer welfare, yet the conversation lacks input from key health stakeholders. 

Nigeria's GMO Landscape: Opportunities and Concerns

Nigeria, with its large agricultural sector and growing population, stands to benefit from GMO technologies that promise higher yields and reduced pesticide use. The adoption of Bt cowpea, for instance, has been touted as a solution to pest-related crop losses, potentially boosting food security. However, critics argue that GMOs could exacerbate dependency on multinational corporations and pose unknown health risks, particularly in a country with limited regulatory oversight. These concerns echo global sentiments, where fears about pesticide resistance, gene transfer to wild species, and allergenicity remain prevalent.

The Nigerian government has taken steps to regulate GMOs, with the National Biosafety Management Agency overseeing safety assessments. Yet, public trust in these processes is low, partly due to limited transparency and engagement from professional bodies. The absence of vocal contributions from health organizations like the NMA and NANNM leaves a critical gap in addressing these concerns from a public health perspective.

The Nigerian Medical Association and the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives represent the country's medical and nursing professionals, respectively. These organizations are uniquely positioned to influence public health policy, educate the populace, and bridge the gap between scientific evidence and public perception. Their silence on the GMO debate is striking, especially given their active engagement in other public health issues, such as infectious disease control and healthcare access.

Several factors may explain this reticence. First, the complexity of the GMO debate, which spans scientific, ethical, and socioeconomic dimensions, may deter these organizations from taking a definitive stance. Engaging in such a polarizing issue risks alienating members or the public, particularly when misinformation about GMOs is rampant. Second, the NMA and NANNM may lack the resources or expertise to conduct independent assessments of GMO safety, relying instead on government or international scientific bodies. Finally, the absence of a unified position within the medical and nursing communities may hinder these organizations from issuing clear statements.

This silence, however, has consequences. Without authoritative voices from the health sector, misinformation can proliferate, and public trust in GMOs may erode further. For instance, in China, a 2016 survey found that 47% of respondents held negative views about GMOs, with some even perceiving them as a form of bioterrorism. Similar misconceptions could take root in Nigeria without proactive engagement from trusted health professionals 

The NMA and NANNM have a responsibility to guide public discourse on issues affecting health and well-being. Their involvement in the GMO debate could take several forms:

• 1. Education and Advocacy: By disseminating evidence-based information, these organizations can counter myths and clarify the scientific consensus on GMO safety. This is particularly crucial in Nigeria, where low scientific literacy and distrust in institutions can amplify fears.
• 2. Policy Engagement: The NMA and NANNM could collaborate with the National Biosafety Management Agency to ensure rigorous safety assessments and transparent communication with the public. Their expertise could strengthen regulatory frameworks and address health-related concerns.
• 3. Research and Dialogue: Initiating studies or forums to explore the health implications of GMOs in the Nigerian context would provide valuable data and foster inclusive discussions among stakeholders.

Moving Forward: A Call to Action

The GMO debate is far from over, despite claims from some quarters that public concern is waning. In Nigeria, where agriculture and public health are deeply intertwined, the silence of the NMA and NANNM is a missed opportunity to shape a balanced and informed discourse. As the nation navigates the adoption of GMO crops, these organizations must step forward to provide clarity, advocate for rigorous safety standards, and ensure that public health remains at the forefront of the conversation. 

By breaking their silence, the NMA and NANNM can play a pivotal role in aligning Nigeria’s agricultural advancements with the health and well-being of its people. The time for action is now—before the debate becomes further polarized and public trust is eroded beyond repair.

---

---