In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, I made up my mind very early to take the vaccine as soon as it was available and accessible. To my mind, it was better to take the vaccine and maybe die later, than do nothing at all and still be killed by the virus.
Thankfully, I took the vaccine and survived.
Millions of people died from the virus but even though there were some recorded deaths of those who took the vaccine, the figures are incomparable.
Some of those who were initially skeptical and refused to be vaccinated as a result of fake news and conspiracy theories later accepted the vaccine when they began to see it’s effectiveness in solving the problem at hand.
And that is the beauty of science, providing solutions for every day problems.
A few days back, the government of Kenya announced a cabinet resolution, lifting an earlier ban on genetically modified crops in the country.
The resolution, it was reported, was in response to the worst drought affecting the country in 40 years, in the hope that it would improve crop yields and food security.
“Cabinet vacated its earlier decision of 8th November, 2012 prohibiting the open cultivation of genetically modified crops and the importation of food crops and animal feeds produced through biotechnology innovations. The cabinet has effectively lifted the ban on Genetically Modified Crops,” it was announced.
Change, even though said to be constant, is one of the most resisted phenomenon.
This resistance to change, coupled with fear, largely of the unknown, are the twin demons that often combine to make acceptance of science and its innovations problematic.
Food insecurity is one of the biggest problems the world is confronted with today. The major drivers of the global food crisis are insecurity and armed conflict, climate change, and economic downturns in addition to the COVID-19 pandemic which further compounded the situation, slowing down progress in the area.
Data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) shows that an estimated 720 to 811 million people in the world faced hunger in 2020, showing an increase of 118 million more people facing hunger, compared to 2019.
It is also projected that by 2030, around 660 million people may still face hunger, partly as a result of the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on global food security.
This clearly shows that concerted efforts need to be made to ensure that the situation doesn’t get worse.
And this is where science comes in, particularly the science of Genome Editing, as it concerns food production for sufficiency.
This is an aspect of science that has been tested and proven to have the potential to increase crop yield and the income of farmers.
However, there has been a lot of suspicion and misunderstanding around the science, which is further worsened by those campaigning against their acceptance.
With genome, scientists are able to make targeted and precise changes in the genome of an organism to produce a mutant or edit, similar to what is obtained in nature. It is different from genetic engineering which has to do with the introduction of foreign (novel) DNA into an organism by artificial methods. The foreign DNA can be from plants, animals, microorganisms or viruses and the product obtained by classical genetic engineering is called GMO.
While the end goal of both is the same, there are differences.
One may ask, why genome editing?
Genome editing according to experts, helps to remove allergens from food, reduce saturated and trans fats, and enrich nutrients in crops, it facilitates the breeding of crops resistant to disease, drought and insects, allowing farmers to reduce use of pesticides and fertilizers, saves crops like banana and orange from destructive plant diseases, such as wilt fungus and citrus greening, which have no other cure and reduces food wastage by breeding fruits and vegetables like apples and potatoes, with a natural resistance to bruising and browning, thereby extending their use and shelf life, helping crops adapt to climate change; and reducing food price through higher yields.
Seeing the benefits of the science of gene editing, it will be nice to see how it can be applied in Nigeria for the benefit of smallholder farmers especially, who lose all their income in buying pesticides and also suffer post harvest loss either as a result of the short shelf life of the produce or because the crops are diseased.
Post harvest loss in Nigeria has been estimated at 50 per cent of harvest and in monetary terms, N3.5 trillion annually.
A technology that solves this problem should therefore be adopted and properly communicated to farmers and other stakeholders.
The good news for us in Nigeria is that there are regulations and guidelines in place already to ensure that this is carried out in a safe manner that does not jeopardise human life.
It is in view of the pivotal role of science, such as this, in ensuring food security that the Nigerian government, in keeping with the dynamics of global technological developments, enacted the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) amended Act 2019 in August 2019, which expanded the mandate of the NBMA to include emerging biotechnology applications including gene editing.
Under the Act, no person or agency is expected to carry out gene drive, gene editing and synthetic biology except with the approval of the Agency.
To this end, the NBMA has developed the National Guidelines on gene editing which provide pertinent information to applicants, stakeholders and the general public on the NBMA’s statutory biosafety oversight on gene editing activities.
The guidelines, which establish an internal review process to determine the regulatory pathway of any application; includes clear administrative and contextual guidance in the form of a standard application form; states that it uses both process and product trigger gene editing regulatory approach; and aligns well with the great majority of other international guidelines for plant based Genome Editing that have been published to date.
The guidelines, the way I see it, are intended to remove any kind of fear as it is regulated science that meets all conditions for human consumption.
When it comes to scientific interventions and the skepticism that often slows receptivity, as the Alliance for Science will say, hope is better than fear.
