GMO Regulation Conflict In Nigeria: Legal And Health Risks. By Academician Dr.Philip Njemanze, MD

1. Introduction There is a growing concern over the regulatory conflict between the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) and the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) in Nigeria, particularly concerning the evaluation and control of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially food crops. This dual regulation poses significant legal and health risks, and arguably violates constitutional provisions under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
2. Overview of the Regulatory Bodies
   NAFDAC is the statutory body established to regulate and control the manufacture, importation, exportation, advertisement, distribution, sale, and use of food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, chemicals, and packaged water in Nigeria. This includes ensuring food safety and protecting public health.
   NBMA, established under the National Biosafety Management Agency Act 2015, is tasked with providing regulatory oversight for modern biotechnology and ensuring the safety of GMOs before they are released into the environment or consumed.
3. Legal Conflict and Overlap
   • Jurisdictional Overlap: The mandates of NAFDAC and NBMA clearly overlap when it comes to the regulation of genetically modified food products. While NAFDAC is responsible for food safety, NBMA has taken the role of granting permits for GMOs, including those consumed as food. This creates legal ambiguity and regulatory duplication.
   • Violation of Constitutional Mandate: Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” When two agencies operate with conflicting or unclear jurisdictions over a matter as crucial as food safety, it undermines the constitutional guarantee of public welfare.
   • Delegation Without Oversight: NBMA’s assumption of food-related safety responsibilities may be seen as an unconstitutional encroachment on NAFDAC’s mandate, which was duly established to protect the public from unsafe food and drugs. Any such delegation must be clearly defined, and subject to strict inter-agency oversight mechanisms, which are currently lacking.
4. Public Health Concerns
   • Lack of Transparency and Data: There is a paucity of publicly available peer-reviewed data on the short- and long-term health effects of GMOs approved by NBMA. This absence of transparent scientific scrutiny violates global best practices and the precautionary principle in food safety.
   • Risk of Irreversible Harm: Genetically modified foods, if not properly evaluated and monitored, may introduce allergenic or toxic effects into the food chain. Without NAFDAC’s thorough toxicological and nutritional assessments, there is a significant health risk to the Nigerian population.
   • Absence of Post-Market Surveillance: NAFDAC typically implements post-market surveillance for food and drug products. NBMA does not have a similar framework for monitoring the long-term impacts of GMOs released into the market, thereby creating a regulatory vacuum.
5. Recommendations
   • Legal Clarification by the National Assembly: There is an urgent need for the legislature to harmonize the laws establishing NAFDAC and NBMA. A clear delineation of roles should be enacted, assigning primary authority over food safety, including GMOs, to NAFDAC.
   • Moratorium on GMO Approvals: Until a transparent, joint framework is developed between NBMA and NAFDAC, there should be a moratorium on the commercial release of GMO food products in Nigeria.
   • Constitutional Review: The current practice violates the spirit of the Constitution’s protection of public welfare. Therefore, regulatory reforms should be pursued to bring biosafety practices in line with constitutional expectations.
6. Conclusion The regulatory conflict between NAFDAC and NBMA poses serious legal and public health concerns. This dual authority over GMOs contradicts the constitutional priority of safeguarding public welfare, and undermines Nigeria’s food safety framework. It is imperative that a harmonized, transparent, and scientifically rigorous system be established to ensure that all genetically modified food products are safe for consumption and in full compliance with constitutional mandates.

Academician Dr Philip C. Njemanze MD, is the
Chairman, Global Prolife Alliance (GPA)