Public health advocates canvass total rejection of ‘food colonialism’ amid growing concerns that industrial animal farming and use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) crops and products remain huge threats to Nigeria and Africa’s food sovereignty and justice
By Edu Abade
Environmental activists, climate crusaders and public health watchdogs have raised the alarm on attempts to foist what they described as ‘food colonialism’ on Nigeria and the African continent by continually promoting Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) crops and products on consumers, insisting that the move remains a huge threat to food sovereignty and justice.
Speaking at the National Symposium on GMOs held in Abuja on September 1, 2025, Executive Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Dr. Nnimmo Bassey, cautioned that the development must be resisted to safeguard the continent’s food systems to avert a major health disaster on the people.
Citing a popular adage, he said, “When solving a problem, dig at the roots instead of just hacking at the leaves. The challenge of food insecurity in Nigeria and Africa requires a deliberate pause and critical thinking about the factors that have created it and a concerted effort at addressing them. Overlooking the root causes of food insecurity (including farmer-herder clashes, banditry), poor support for local farmers, poverty, inequality, inflation, climate change and others shows the lack of readiness to solve the problem.”
Bassey, who argued that the entry of GMOs into Nigeria started in 2015 with the enactment of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act, which was further expanded in 2019 to allow for gene editing and synthetic biology, noted that sadly, the Biosafety Act was preceded by the creation of the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), an agency created to promote modern biotechnology and later christened National Biotechnology Research and Development Agency (NBRDA).
“To be clear, this agency was established at a time when there was no biosafety law in the country. The cart was clearly put before the horse and this seriously injured any effort to regulate the sector and ensure biosafety in the country. This is particularly so because the promotion agency has a deep embryonic connection with the agency that ought to regulate it. This warped governmental approach has made it impossible for policy makers to see biosafety as an existential issue.
“These two agencies of government cannot be excused for seeing themselves as infallible and even as being the government itself. They may be a part of the government, but they are not the government. They falsely see GMOs as a one size fits all solution, virtually forget other areas of modern biotechnology and set their eyes only on gutting our agricultural and food systems. Solutions such as the genetic engineering of plants/animals do not address these root causes, and we should be worried that there is such an adamant push to entrench them in our food systems by the producers and their allies in government. There is obviously an open conspiracy to counter our best interests while locking in colonial controls over our agricultural and food systems.
“GMOs are promoted in Nigeria on the premise of addressing food insecurity. However, after almost three decades since their introduction in the world, they have not eradicated or reduced hunger. Rather, they lock in the system that promotes hunger by degrading soils and poor harvests (case of Nigerian cotton farmers in 2024), reducing biodiversity, disregarding the knowledge of local food producers, and concentrating power in the hands of a few market players.
“GMOs ride on the wave of global fetishisation of technology, by which technology is considered a silver bullet. Besides the generally poor regulatory frameworks, GMOs directly impact human and the socio-economic rights of our peoples. The complex threats, including environmental degradation and loss of our food heritage, make it expedient that we examine the push for GMOs on the continent more critically. We must debunk the notion that resisting GMOs is akin to opposing science or technology. Rejecting GMOs is also not a matter of fear, except the fear of being colonized with its attendant exploitation and humiliation.”
The foremost environmentalist also stressed that GMOs represent a paradigm shift in agriculture; they are not just an option or solution, insisting that Africa must think beyond the mythical temporary relief that is imagined or promised and consider what long term impacts they portend.
He explained that GMOs are plants, animals, or microorganisms that have undergone fundamental changes at the cellular level and can no longer be considered natural, adding, “Most of them are engineered to withstand dangerous herbicides which kill other organisms except the engineered ones. Other crops are genetically engineered to act as pesticides aimed ostensibly to kill identified pests that would otherwise attack the crop or seeds. Examples include Bt Cotton and Bt Cowpea or beans approved for commercial planting and consumption in Nigeria.
“GMOs represent the subversion of Africa’s food systems, which was intentionally constructed through the colonization of thought-a phenomenon concretized through persistent coloniality of knowledge and power. You may wonder why anyone would subvert another’s food system. The reasons for this are many. The colonizers think and act in their own interests. This subversion covers every area of production and ensures that labour is not invested for meeting local needs while expanding and consolidating labour to meet the needs of the colonizers.”
According to Bassey, responsible use of technology in agriculture requires that we keep careful watch on their effect on human and environmental health. We also need to consider the fact that technologies that promote monoculture and erode our biodiversity are not sustain-able and must be avoided in a world that is almost at the brink of ecological collapse.
“We do not need GMOs to be able to produce enough food for our population. GMOs have not led to an increase of food production since their introduction. In 2025, it was reported that Tanzania achieved food sufficiency by 128% without GMOs and by increasing support for their local farmers and by promoting organic food production. Recent studies have revealed that more than 40% of food produced in Nigeria goes to waste due to lack of proper processing and storage facilities. This needs to be addressed.
“We must decolonize our agricultural system. The ways to achieve this include the preservation of crop and animal varieties, rebuilding our food systems, thereby, recovering our culture. A decolonized agriculture invests in support systems for farmers, including by providing extension services and providing/upgrading rural infrastructure. It also means preserving local varieties, ensuring that farmers have access to land and funding research institutions to build a knowledge base on healthy soils and resilient indigenous crops.
“It would also mean putting farmers on the driving seat of agricultural policy, elevating and prioritizing the precautionary principle in biosafety issues, and outlawing harmful herbicides and pesticides. It would again mean placing a swift moratorium on all types of agricultural modern biotechnology as this is a key means of eroding species varieties besides threatening outright extinctions. Nigeria is at a critical point where we must decide on the way forward for food sovereignty. This is not just another symposium. It is a space where we must exert our rights, and demand for the liberation of our food system,” he added.
In another development, the group cautioned against the adoption of industrial animal farming, pointing out that West Africa’s food sovereignty has been an area of concern in recent years.
In a communiqué issued at the end of the stakeholders’ workshop on industrial animal farming and the implications in Nigeria, it lamented that Nigeria now faced a growing threat from industrial animal farming (also known as factory farming) and its impact on our food systems, environment, public health and agricultural sovereignty.
At the one-day stakeholders workshop, participants from government, academia, civil society, local farming communities, environmental groups, the private sector and the media from Nigeria and Kenya deliberated on the critical implications of JBS S.A.’s $2.5 billion investment plan in Nigeria, which includes establishing six industrial facilities in some states.
The Federal Government has pledged to provide the necessary and favourable economic, sanitary and regulatory conditions to support the project. JBS SA has identified Ogun State as a key investment hub due to its strategic location and infrastructure, and some other states in Nigeria are positioning themselves as beneficiaries of the project, seeing as it has huge potential for revenue generation.
“We recognise that a corporate-controlled food system represents a fundamental threat to our nation’s food sovereignty, environmental sustainability, and the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers who currently provide up to 70 percent of Nigeria’s food supply.
“The JBS investment will require a massive expanse of land. Already, Niger State has promised 1.2 million hectares of land. That is huge by any standards and may be the biggest single land grabbing in Africa by a company. Another fact to note is that the products will be mostly for export and do not aim to meet Nigeria’s nutritional needs. In other words, the entire construct is patently extractive and colonial.
“The proposed industrial facilities threaten massive environmental degradation, including water and land pollution, deforestation, biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, and unsustainable resource consumption that could strain local water and land availability.
“Large-scale industrial farming operations will systematically displace smallholder farmers, disrupt traditional farming practices, and undermine indigenous food systems and cultural dietary practices. The $2.5 billion JBS investment lacks rigorous oversight mechanisms, proper Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), Social Impact Assessments, community consultation processes, and transparency measures, despite its potential for widespread community displacement.
“Industrial animal farming is fundamentally alien to Nigeria’s traditional food culture and represents a direct assault on food sovereignty, farmer autonomy, and democratic control over food choices. Corporate consolidation of food systems creates dangerous dependency on multinational corporations, threatening national food sovereignty and agricultural self-reliance,” the communiqué reads.
Following the developments, participants at the symposium urged the Federal Government to revoke the approval granted to JBS for operation in Nigeria due to a documented history of environmental crime, including massive deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions of up to 70 million tons, worsening climate change and socio-economic disruption in local communities.
In the communiqué, made available to journalists by HOMEF Media and Communication Lead, ‘Kome Odhomor, they also charged government at all levels to reject industrial animal farming models that threaten food sovereignty and invest in supporting smallholder farmers through policy frameworks, financial assistance and infrastructure development that empower local food systems.
“Federal and state governments should conduct comprehensive, independent Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for any proposed industrial farming projects, with mandatory community consultation and transparent public scrutiny before approving such investments.
“The Government and Nigerian citizens should actively support local farmers and food systems, choose locally-produced foods over industrial products, and advocate for healthy, culturally appropriate food choices that preserve our indigenous food heritage.
“Government should implement strict regulations on multinational food corporations, including mandatory accountability mechanisms, environmental safeguards, and protection of community rights against displacement and exploitation.
“Academic and research institutions should prioritize research into sustainable, agro-ecological farming methods and expose the true costs of industrial animal farming on public health, the environment and social equity,” among other recommendations.
