Feeding the Nation or Selling the Farm?

[John Onyeukwu]

Feeding the Nation or Selling the Farm?*

The GMO Debate and the Soul of Nigerian Policy

 John Onyeukwu

(Published on the Backpage of Business am Newspaper of Friday August 29, 2025). Attached

There are few things more urgent, more morally binding, than feeding a hungry nation. In a country where millions sleep on empty stomachs and farmers wrestle with climate change, insecurity, poor infrastructure, and volatile markets, the idea of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) offering higher yields and pest resistance is seductive. It promises quick fixes in a landscape desperate for solutions.

But as always, seduction is not consent. And we must ask: in whose interest is this biotechnology revolution truly unfolding? Is it a path to genuine food security, or a backdoor to economic dependency, corporate hegemony, and the gradual erosion of Nigeria’s agricultural sovereignty and cultural identity?

This is not a debate about science alone. It is a matter of philosophy, politics, and economics, a test of whether our policy choices reflect not just technical solutions but the values, power structures, and incentive systems that ultimately shape our national life and collective future.

The philosophical question is fundamental: do we see our farmers as stewards of knowledge and heritage, or as passive consumers of imported technologies? Do we believe food is a right, tied to dignity and human flourishing, or a commodity to be patented, monopolized, and sold to the highest bidder? GMOs, as they are currently introduced, reflect a vision of agriculture where innovation is proprietary, seed-saving is criminalized, and control is concentrated in the hands of a powerful few.

It is not enough for a crop to resist pests if, in the process, it weakens the moral fabric of our food system. A system that displaces indigenous knowledge, erodes cultural farming practices, undermines farmer autonomy, and denies communities the right to transparency in what they are eating is not progress, it is conquest wrapped in science. The question we must ask is not only what will feed us today but also what kind of agricultural future will we inherit tomorrow, one of shared resilience or one of dependency and control.

The political economy of GMOs in Nigeria reveals a troubling pattern that cannot be ignored. The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) entrusted with safeguarding public interest, often fast-tracks approvals with little transparency and limited consultation. Farmers’ unions, consumer associations, and civil society groups are rarely given the chance to meaningfully contribute. Meanwhile, multinational corporations sponsor field trials, fund research institutions, and lobby policymakers aggressively, ensuring their voices dominate the conversation. Ordinary Nigerians, who will eat the food, grow the crops, and live with the consequences, remain on the margins of decision-making.

Policy is never made in a vacuum; it is always shaped by power, influence, and the silent hierarchies of access. When GMO approvals resemble a rubber stamp exercise rather than a democratic process, when civil society is dismissed as “anti-science” simply for demanding accountability, we see the fingerprints of captured governance. That is not participatory policy-making. It is quiet authoritarianism, dressed up in the language of modernization, where corporate interests are elevated above national sovereignty and public welfare.

The economic case for GMOs is often made with broad strokes: increased yield, food security, and export potential. But little is said about the hidden costs, the steep price of patented seeds, and the contractual obligations that prevent farmers from reusing them, the decline of local seed diversity, and the long-term distortions to Nigeria’s agro-economy. Beyond seeds, GMOs often tie farmers into input packages, herbicides, pesticides, and licenses, locking them into cycles of debt and dependence.

It is self-evident that Nigeria’s farmers, especially smallholders who form the backbone of our food system, do not operate in the same economic universe as multinational biotech firms. Their challenges are basic, insecurity, access to credit, affordable fertilizer, reliable irrigation, and protection from climate shocks. A farmer who already struggles to afford these essentials will not thrive in a regime where seeds are effectively rented season by season, controlled by distant foreign entities, enforced by complex legal frameworks, and shielded from accountability. Such a system does not empower farmers; it entrenches dependency.

This is not innovation. It is economic neocolonialism, a model where we import not only technology but also dependency, losing not just control of our food but the bargaining power that comes with true self-reliance. Development should empower, not entrench structural subordination.

Nigeria does not need to choose between hunger and helplessness. We have the talent, the land, and the agricultural legacy. What we require is a new development philosophy, one rooted in sovereignty, accountability, and equity, not dependency disguised as progress. Our policies must serve farmers first, not corporations.

Biotechnology should not be demonized. But it must be domesticated, reimagined for Nigeria’s context. Let Nigerian scientists lead with homegrown research agendas. Let farmer cooperatives co-design policy frameworks. Let food labeling be mandatory so citizens’ exercise informed choice. Let biosafety decisions be transparent and independent. Let alternative models like agro ecology, regenerative farming, and indigenous seed banks receive equal, if not greater, investment.

We must not allow fear to paralyze innovation, but neither should we allow optimism to blind us. The question is not simply whether GMOs are good or bad. The real question is deeper: who decides who benefits, and who bears the cost? It is about power, voice, and accountability in shaping our food future.

Feeding the nation is urgent, but it must never come at the price of our sovereignty. A policy that addresses hunger today but mortgages the freedom of tomorrow is a false solution. True innovation empowers communities, protects cultural heritage, and strengthens national capacity. Nigeria must guard against the illusion of progress that comes packaged in dependency.

Because if we get this wrong, we will not only be feeding the nation, we will be selling the farm, and with it, our freedom, our dignity, and the birthright of generations yet unborn. We risk trading short-term relief for long-term bondage, surrendering sovereignty for convenience, and leaving behind a legacy of dependency rather than resilience.

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va6de2U7oQhkR1uYDA1S

John Onyeukwu
http://www.policy.hu/onyeukwu/

 http://about.me/onyeukwu
“Let us move forward to fight poverty, to establish equity, and assure peace for the next generation.”
-- James D. Wolfensohn
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete or destroy the message. Thank you.

[Cornelius Hamelberg]

The litanies & tireless tirades from Messrs Jibrin Ibrahim, 

Musa Auwal Rafsanjani, John Onyeukwu, continue. 

To the unattached observer it all adds up to an indictment 

of the previous governments, because the food security problem 

didn't start start this week, it started with previous governments

not successfully prioritizing agriculture and the feeding of the nation.

It was on BBC yesterday: 3.5 children in Nigeria, malnourished 

Back in 2004 there was high hopes 

thanks to Monty Jones and NERICA

Long before that,  ah, nostalgia - 

once upon a time in Africa,

when everything was ecologically grown.

The solution ? Old Major said it all