GMO:NBMA will not Compromise Safety, counter opinions disagree, call for national debate

Dr. Rufus E. Ebegba

Dr. Rufus E. Ebegba, Director General, National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) has said that the responsibility of the Agency is to safe guard the health of Nigerians in the practice of modern biotechnology and the use of genetically modified organisms.

Dr. Ebegba made it known at the colloquium organized by the Catholic secretariat in conjunction with the Open Forum of Agricultural Biotechnology (OFAB) on Tuesday in Abuja.

He said, “The responsibility of NBMA is not to stop GMOs in Nigeria but to ensure it is safe and it does not pose any adverse effect to humans and the environment in accordance with the National Biosafety Management Act 2015”.

The Director General noted that “The world is being driven by science and technology and Nigeria cannot shy away from the deployment of safe science and technology to solve problems affecting the nation.

“Nigeria as a country has taken the necessary legal precautionary measures to ensure that the health of the citizens and environment is not jeopardized by the introduction of genetically modified organisms’’.

He said that, “The Federal Government has taken necessary measures after due legislative processes to establish the NBMA. The Agency is manned by competent and qualified scientists who are rated as some of the best when compared to their counter parts across the continent; we therefore have the requisite knowledge and experience to effectively regulate the technology in the country”.

He also said that, “The Agency has established a modern GMO Detection and Analysis laboratory as part of efforts to ensure safety in the country”.

He enjoined Nigeria-based scientists, Federal-based organizations and the general public to continue to trust on government to protect and safeguard their health.

But other opinions have challenged this statement made by the DG, NBMA thereby demanding for national debate especially on the GMO safety which was support by the OFAB, National Coordinator, Dr. Rose Gidado. Read the excerpts of the discussions from Mr. Ayeni, Oladehinde, Mr. Charles Ikeotuonye and Jacquelin Ikeotuonye, Kunle Mckmouth Daramola.

Discussion-

Ayeni oladehinde- Very reassuring statement, but how competitive is your laboratory capacity in term of operation using electricity that can be taken without any notice even while testing is going on...this concern becomes necessary due to paucity of fund which i know may not be sparing your agency except you are internationally funded. Ensuring safety requires efficient equipments void of substandard oooo too...scientific innovation towards increasing food production is inevitable, but all doubts about this engineering gene enhancement must be well addressed through a well unbiased process of seed monitoring to safety standard with compliance to registration at NACRAB, Ibadan....

Charles ikeotuonye- Sir, your agency has already compromised by allowing Monsanto to bring into Nigeria products that will definitely harm the people. There is practically no way your agency can protect the public from the harm of GMOs. It’s really sad.

Rose Gidado- You are writing out of ignorance. You have little knowledge about what we have been doing in the country. Our Seed Law does not allow any seed in commercial quantity. NBMA does not work in isolation. Any seed brought in must undergo trial for 2- 3 years. For the past 8 years, we have been carrying out trials in Nigeria with no commercialization yet. The seed companies are also bound by international laws and regulations. For safe history of use of this technology for 20 years in the most developed countries in the world, be rest assured that there is no compromise for safety. WHO, FAO, UK Royal Society and others have tested GM products and found no dangers in them. And so they have endorsed the safety. There is no respected body like WHO in the globe.

Kunle Mckmouth Daramola -  Charles Can you point out the GMOs brought in by Monsanto,if you have anything against mosantos treat it in your own way, not to instigate the populace to criticize a technology you know little or nothing about sir. Read wide, pay visits to these agencies; consult the stakeholders to know the status of biotechnology in Nigeria and regulatory strategies. Stay blessed.

Charles ikeotuonye- Kunle Mckmouth Daramola, you must be a super god for you to say I have little or no knowledge about the recombinant DNA technology. I had expected you to teach me that which you think I don’t know because I like learning. Anyway, if you don’t know of any Monsanto product in this country then I am shocked you are taking up issues with me because you can easily bruise yourself in a public space like this. However, I will do you a rare favor; I will send a friends request to you so that you will have access to places you will be properly informed. It is assumed that those who come up on NBMA’s wall are well informed. In my wall I will be more disposed to answer every kindergarten question about the consciousness we are raising over GMOs not biotechnology.

Dr. Rose Gidado, to be fair with you, I clearly have little knowledge of what you are doing because your organization is operating in conclave. But I am a little bit surprised that you are saying I am writing out of ignorance. Maybe you didn’t read my post. Anybody who visits any Monsanto facility will always fall in love with them because DNA technology is very tantalizing. But does that make their products safe? The production of the atomic bomb is also based on similar sophistry. The truth is that your own organization has the right to promote biotechnology and you are vigorously doing that. It is also our right to raise important safety issues regarding the use of GMOs in our agriculture because our environment is not any scientist’s personal laboratory. You people are trying to circumvent these safety issues in order to impose GMOs on Nigerians. We will not keep quiet while those who claim to be protecting us are coerced by foreign element to use out-dated reductionist scientific concept to destroy the beauty of our ecosystem. I know the position of WHO, FAO over the use of GMOs and I have their reports. NBMA is clearly not doing what they recommended and can’t even do it. Show Nigerians the 2008 World Bank and UN IAASTD report endorsed by 58 countries. It is amazing that you mentioned the UK Royal Society because Dr. Rufus told the world that we should ignore Europe when it comes to GMOs. There is nothing personal about this GMO issue, so stop being selective with reports. You simply cannot continue to tell Nigerians that there is no danger associated with the use of GMOs when you have not measured any. If you claim you have; show us the report of the study. NBMA is a public agency and we have the right know. You cannot use propaganda to dismantle scientific facts and expect people to keep quiet. Science is precise and I know you are a scientist and not a politician.

Rose Gidado- GMOs hold the key to sustainable agriculture, whether you like it or not. It’s a scientific innovation designed to assist and empower farmers in the area of agriculture. Same technology is used in medicine and there are no complains concerns. Insulin, vaccines, rapid diagnostic kits for HIV, malaria, hepatitis etc. your activism should be constructive not destructive. Scientists are responsible people.

Charles ikeotuonye- Dr. Gidado, promoters of the application of genetic engineering in agriculture are always quick to point to its use in medical applications; insulin is always on their lips. In the application of genetic engineering to create medical products, these products MUST undergo animal and human clinical trials to determine their safety. And after approval, there is in place a post approval marketing surveillance system to catch any adverse event missed during clinical trial and drug withdrawals is not voluntary. However, in applying genetic engineering to agriculture, ‘’Substantial Equivalence’’ is used by regulators to paper over the safety tests that GMOs truly deserve.

Rose Gidado- Drugs kill faster than any other thing. if the technology is dangerous, i think the world would have been finished by now. Many people are still alive because of one drug or the other. The same use this technology has in medicine is the same use it has in agriculture. GM foods are the most scrutinized and tested foods. They are not released until safety is ensured. We as scientists are parts of the consumers. Conventional breeding improvement methods involve thousands of extraneous genes along with genes of interests. The final products are consumed without regulation, yet nothing is wrong with that. The one that is intensively studied and scrutinized is the one that has concern. You guys have politicized science. Science is same everywhere. Coming to EU, EU, after funding 130 research projects, over more than 25 years, by more than 500 INDEPENDENT research groups concluded that GMOs are not any more risky than conventional counterparts. Europe imports HT Soybean to the tune of 9 billion dollars yearly for food and feed use. If they are dangerous, Europe solution would been wiped off. They invest huge sum of money for research and development. The EU politics prevent cultivation of GM crops. 68 GMOs have been authorized for food and feed.1 Billion cattle have been fed with GMO with no harm.2,404 field trials in GM crops have been conducted between 1992 -2008 and trials are still ongoing. Nigeria has been carrying out her own trial and domesticating the technology. We have the capacity. A country that cannot feed itself cannot have a self-pride’’. The issue of food security therefore requires that all hands be on deck for the reconstruction, revival and rejuvenation of our agricultural sector. Agric biotech can contribute a lot, hybrid technology can contribute, and mechanization can contribute. It’s a combination of all. Poly- economy not mono economy. Those going against scientific innovations are enemies of progress. They want Africa to continue to wallow in abject poverty and primitively.

Science must not be politicized. This is a biological era, gene revolution. Nigeria must not miss as it had missed in early years, green revolution, industrial revolution and all. The African witchcraft is always setting us backwards. No progress. The white man uses his positively and benefits. Make his life more comfortable and convenient.

Charles ikeotuonye- You will agree with not all scientists are responsible people. I can fill up this place with names but it is not necessary. The truth is that the rampant cases of falsification and fabrication taking place in the field of science are because we have not given scientists the protection they need in order to carry out their assignment without overt interference from commercial interest. There are fine scientists working both at NABDA and NBMA, including you Dr. Rose Gidado. It is our constitutional duty to protect you people there at those sensitive positions. And one of the ways we are doing that is to ensure you people are not intimidated by the industry. And we will continue to do that until the right is done.

Dr. Gidado, with due respect we are talking about the safety of GMOs and the science behind this technology. I don’t know how Africa and witchcraft came into the matrix. It is NABDA, NBMA, and OFAB that is politicizing this whole issue because they have chosen ‘’economic imperative’’ as their basis to support the introduction of GMOs in Nigeria. Drugs kill through repeated exposure. Seeds that are genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides are never classified as food. They fall under the umbrella of pesticides. They are drugs, even if you decide to call them food. As a result their harm will also come through repeated exposure. However, by claiming that GMO foods are not harming people you create the impression that you have any epidemiological data to support your claim. The Gilles Seralini study showed what could happen when GMOs are fed mice throughout their lifetime. You pretend not to know about this study. When claim that GMOs can be sustainably used in agriculture to feed the world, you appear to have deliberately ignored important reports like the UNCTAD [Trade and Environment Review] published in 2013 that even came with the caption ‘’Wake up before it is too late’’ and the 2013 FAO report captioned ‘’Golbal Emission From Livestock Farming’’. 

The UNCTAD said that industrial agriculture is not sustainable and can’t feed the world. The FAO report showed that 70 percent of grains produced through industrial agriculture go into livestock feeding. The IAASTD report showed that GMOS does increase yield. So it is pure delusion for anybody to claim that GMOs can be used to feed people. In any case this not our concern; we are talking about the safety of GMOs. You withhold the facts if you say that it is politics that is preventing EU from planting GMOs. At least you have agreed that they are not planting it. The reason why they have refused to plant GMOs is not politics but because Europe has refused to view GMOs from the eye of the Petri dish. In we must give credit to their informed media and regional farmers. Left for EFSA alone, Europe would have been a GMO nation. They have refused to ignore the Rowett Institute study headed by Arpad Pusztai. It is rather politics that made the US to approve the use of GMOs. I will refer you to a very informative documentary ‘’The World according To Monsanto’’. Dan Glickman who was Secretary of agriculture between 1995 and 2000 and James Maryanski who was the FDA biotechnology coordinator between 1985 and 2006 appeared in that documentary. James Maryanski clearly stated that the approval of GMOs in the US was not based on science but rather on a broad political decision to move the US biotech industry forward. Dan Glickman said that he was personally warned not to push the issue of GMOs safety too far.

Ayeni Oladehinde - Mr. Charles...i really enjoy your lines of argument which importantly bothers on safety....but besides this....for better clarity, is there anything wrong in trouble shooting through the use of science knowledge to enhance agricultural production using Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) as the case of " on the farm trials presently going on in Nigeria by National scientists and farmers to test the potency of this improved technology"....can we be analylitical by freeing our minds from USA and Europe differences on this matter, but basically take it from the point of climate change challenges- drought, longer and shorter rain cum pests that are easily destroying our OPV...i.e our conventional seeds...what is your take pls?....let me add this....Nigeria in her crave to economic diversification cannot aviod to totally dispense any technology, but rather give it a well scrutiny like this ongoing interface where minds are being rubbed for constructive purpose.

Charles ikeotuonye - Dehinde Ayeni, science has rules and ambiguity should not be part of science. You cannot equate ‘’gossip’’ to solid scientific opinion. We are fighting those who have chosen to stand science on its head through disinformation and misrepresentation of facts. In GMOs, we are trying to solve a problem we created by trying to create another one. There are so many things going wrong with those field trials but because they are operating in a kind of laboratory setting it is important to permit them to continue with their work with the belief that the outcome of those trials will discourage further romance with GMOs. It is only when they ignore these concerns and attempts to release them into the environment that we challenge them. Permit me to leave the GMO issue for now since it is at the center of our current agitation. I will specifically talk to you about GMOs and why they should march them back into the laboratory until scientists gain a rooted understanding of the structure and dynamics of genes. This is because genes are the blueprints of life and we cannot stand and watch scientists use the current infantile knowledge of genetics to alter these complex blueprints.

One of the major challenges we are facing is the inability of ‘’industry’’ to allow scientists the freedom to address scientific issues. And we know it is has a big issue since Calgene moved genetic engineering from the biomedical field into agriculture. 
 
You raised important issues; I may not be able to address all here. Let me talk briefly on the issue of climatic change which should be of great concern to all of us, even though our regulators are only paying lip and paper attention to it. 
 
In 2006, the FAO published a report ‘’Livestock’s long shadow – Environmental issues and options’’ that estimated that livestock farming alone is contributing 18% of the total Green House Gas GHG emissions. Overall, 40% of the total GHG emission comes from industrial agriculture- the way we produce and distribute food. Yet in the debate about climate, nobody talks about the contribution of industrial agriculture. One man that raised the current global concern on climate change is former US Vice President Al-gore with his documentary ‘’The Inconvenient Truth’’. Surprisingly, that popular film didn’t say anything regarding the contribution of livestock farming and agriculture in general. Over 80% of the global corn and soya production goes into animal feeds and biofuels; not for human feeding. When you present this kind of statistics to those formulating our policies, they start calling you names; you are ignorant, you are not a scientist, you are anti-progress, etc. Meanwhile these are reports from respected bodies and officials here believe that Nigerians don’t have time to read these reports.

 
Another instance you pointed out is the failure of crops to resist pests which usually affect yield, giving rise to scarcity and lead to overall nutritional problems as a result of foods with mangled nutrients. The 2013 UNCTAD report showed that it is impossible to exonerate ‘’Green Revolution’’ from these problems.
Let us leave the issue of seed breeding and tissue culture which breeders are claiming is giving us ‘’improved’’ seeds even though we know the harm of using reductionist concepts to substitute the act of living systems on a planetary scale.

 
At the center of the ‘’Green Revolution’’ is the fertilizer technology and the industry’s promises that came with it. How come is that our crops can no longer resist pests? They have immune system. How come is that our soil could no longer generate the optimal organic basis needed for crops to develop adequate immune system to compete effectively within the ecosystem? We must now defend them with pesticides because Nature ‘’forgot’’ it. If we chose to listen to industry, we will end up blaming local farmers over a problem they didn’t create.

 
Several UN reports and numerous scientific studies point to the excessive use of industrial fertilizer that is destroying soil-nutrient balance and of course climatic effect caused by man’s interference in Nature. For me the word ‘’excessive’’ here is vague. How come is synthetic fertilizer destroying our soil ecosystem? 
All that you need to do to answer this question is to study the science behind the fertilizer technology because every technology we deploy for human use must be backed by science. And science is the objective study of Nature.

 
Sadly, the science behind the synthetic fertilizer technology has been overturned because it was based in error. The sorry thing with this whole issue- including GMOs -is that whenever science overturns technology, the industry simply stop listening to the science because doing that will condemn their business to severe loses or extinction. And to avoid this, they are ready to deploy every arsenal within their command including resuscitating dead science. This is at the center of our activism against the use of GMOs in agriculture. When we demand that our policy makers should listen to instruction coming from science, they ignore us preferring to invoke political or economic imperatives that allow the industry to continuously degrade our environment and poison our food chain. 

To move our agriculture forward; we must begin to think and talk as scientists. We must revert back to the elegant and fascinating science that faithfully copies from nature. We must separate industry from science. 
 We must begin to learn again from nature which we know makes no mistake.
We must allow our technology to derive from science that is alive because when we allow technology to operate outside the boundary of Nature; Nature fights back to defend itself.

We must move back and start from the point where we diverged from nature into error; the introduction of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

Dehinde Ayeni- Thanks so much for your time out for this insightful views...real appreciate your concern too over climate change effect and your englightment into the impact of synthetic fertilizer into our soils....but i am still just wondering how all these challenges will be surmounted without science...preferably "advance" one ooo... @ Charles thanks and God bless.

Charles ikeotuonye -Dehinde Ayeni, let me finally say this; I don’t know what challenges you are talking about. And I don’t also know what you mean by moving forward using advanced technology. Whatever challenges you are talking about is the result of scientists refusing to pay attention to the science you are talking about. Technology and science is not the same thing. Science studies Nature, while we use technology to demonstrate science. So every technology must be based on science that is sound. 

Take for instance the genetic engineering you are talking about. We don’t have any problem with the development of biotechnology. Our problem is with the introduction of recombinant rDNA technology in agriculture which some of the reports I mentioned have warned that they will only lead to dead end. This technology is based on one cardinal scientific premise that ONE GENE PRODUCES ONE PROTEIN. This simply means that if gene-A is transferred to a host cell it will only produce protein-A, and nothing more. 

This was the position of the scientific knowledge in the 60’s and 70’s. Scientific studies including the massive Human Genome project have shown that this premise is totally wrong. The meaning is this; if scientists transfer gene-A into a host cell, it could end up producing not only protein-A but other unintended proteins and that these unintended proteins could be ones that will lead to the creation of new allergens, new toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. And because of the delicate nature of DNA, the transferred gene can activate dormant metabolic pathways or deactivate active metabolic pathways. Apart from all these, the transferred gene comes with the antibiotics resistant gene marker ARM and the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter. How can we just paper these issues over?

The Royal Society of Canada in 2001 issued a report that declared that no genetically modified food should be presumed safe, rather they should be presumed to be inherently hazardous until a proper risk assessment study proves otherwise, and this must be on a case-by-case basis. The Society clearly recognized the fact that rDNA technology can impose unintended outcomes on these foods and many properly conducted studies- detached from external influences –have shown that rDNA technology can activate dangerous metabolic pathways when used to engineer foods. Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato food study showed that. Arpad Pusztai’s GE potato study showed that. Manuela Malatesta’s study on Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant GE soy showed that. 

 
Gilles-Eric Seralini’s study on Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant GE maize NK603 showed that. 

The 1990 US EMS epidemic resulting from Showa Denko’s GE L-Tryptophan supplement also showed that. For any novel product to be considered as GRAS [Generally Recognized As Safe], there must be a ‘’demonstration of safety’’ or a ‘’demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm’’ and there must be an overwhelming consensus among scientists to that effect. Even a US federal court once ruled that the opinion of five scientists is enough to deny any novel food product a GRAS status and even in the Ferolac case, the opinion of just two FDA scientists was considered enough by the court. So, I don’t know what our regulators are talking about. We can move our agriculture forward without synthetic fertilizer, without synthetic pesticides, and without the intervention of rDNA. We must recognize the need for a paradigm shift in agriculture because the industrial model is simply not working and it will be unfair to expect government to continue year-in-year-out to be subsidizing an unviable system. Thank you for your own time.

I will be most pleased if you are able to do that. In life we should not worry about the fruit of our action. What matters is the obligation for our action. Whether we succeed in this campaign or not is not the issue. As long as we are convinced that we are saying the truth and doing the right thing history will remember us. I am not representing any commercial interests. I want Nigerians to know what GMOs is all about so that each person can make an informed decision over this matter. For now our people is still in the dark. Do a survey yourself and it will be clear.

Rose Gidado- Charles, I know you and your sister, Jacquelin are under pay by some chemical companies. You have to keep your job.SAFETY TESTING OF GM FOODS, CROPS &PRODUCTS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE
Substantial Equivalence (SE): It is developed progressively by Food Safety Systems Institutions: WHO; FAO and OECD. 

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Promotes policies for highest sustainable economic development in member states Establishes guidelines for chemical testing, toxic chemicals, pesticides, and biotechnology Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Leads international efforts to ensure sufficient nutrition for all World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations Provides scientific advice on matters related to food safety through its Food Safety Department
Founded in 1963 by a joint initiative of the FAO and the WHO, the Codex Alimentarius Commission
SE establishes the fact a GM derivative based on food material with history of safe consumption. SE aims to establish that a GM derivative is as safe as its conventional counterpart. 

It is not a safety evaluation in itself. It does not identify hazard. It is a start point that structures safety evaluation in relative to a conventional counterpart.

Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food or food component) (OECD, 1993a)

The concept of substantial equivalence is based on the idea that existing products used as foods or food sources can serve as a basis for comparison when assessing the safety and the nutritional value of a food or food ingredient that has been modified by modern biotechnological methods or is new.

SE uses comparative approach to reveal intended and unintended differences between a GM derivative and its conventional counterpart. Differences become a focus for further safety evaluation.
Agronomic, genetic and chemical aspects are compared with a special focus on known allergens, toxins and anti-nutrients.

Goal of GM food safety assessment To provide assurance, in the light of the best available scientific knowledge, that the food does not cause harm when prepared, used and or eaten according to its intend use (CODEX)

Absolute safety is not an achievable goal; better to establish a reasonable certainty of no harm under conditions of use (FAO/WHO) End point of assessment process is to conclude that GM food is as safe as its conventional counterpart.

Food Safety Concerns “Whenever changes are made in the process by which food is made or a new process is introduced, the implication for the safety of the product should be examined. The scope of the evaluation will depend on the nature of the perceived concerns (WHO, 1991)”Structure of food/feed safety risk assessment.

Internationally accepted method: Broad overview
Molecular characterization
Comparative assessment
Compositional analysis
Effects of processing 
Hazard characterization
Toxicity studies
Allergenicity studies
Nutritional assessment
Exposure assessment
Concentration of newly expressed substances and/or changes in levels of endogenous substances
Dietary exposure studies/Food consumption databases

In GM crop testing, the following are considered:
• the transformation process of the genetic modification, including the sequence of the inserted material before and after the transformation event;
• the copy number and site(s) of insertion;
• sequence analysis of the site(s) of insertion, i.e. flanking regions;
• stability of the integration (multiple generations);
• the safety of any newly expressed proteins, including assessment of allergenicity;
• occurrence and implications of unintended effects;
• the role of the new GM animal food in the diet; and
• the potential influence of processing or spoilage on the new GM food product.
After development of the product before release, Allergenicity testing, Food intake assessment, unintended effects, Gene transfer, Toxicological and nutritional evaluation is and overall gene safety is also carried out. 

Structure/function relationship – toxicity/allergenicity
Common structural features, databases
 Allergenicity (FAO/WHO 2001, Codex Alimentarius Commission 2003)
2. In vitro assays – enzymes, receptors,
cell line Simulated gastric digestion
3. In vivo animal studies
4. Post-market monitoring Several companies for certain products Early warning Facilitates product recall
Absence of adverse health effects Determining consumption patterns – implications and applications relevant to food toxicology as it might help to determine estimated daily intake (EDI) of a given
Molecular characterization did it create new readable areas in the plant genome (possibility for fusion proteins) What gene products are produced (are they the expected gene products?) Presence of unwanted DNA (vector backbone) did it create new readable areas in the plant genome (possibility for fusion proteins) What gene products are produced (are they the expected gene products?)Presence of unwanted DNA (vector backbone)
Compositional analysis Proximates (including moisture and total ash),Key macro- and micro-nutrients,
Anti-nutritional compounds, Natural toxins, Allergens, Other plant metabolites characteristic for the plant species Toxicological assessment.

Toxicological assessment must consider:
presence and levels of newly expressed proteins;
potential presence of other new constituents;
possible changes in the levels of endogenous constituents beyond normal variation;
impact of other changes in composition due to the genetic modification.
molecular and biochemical characterization of the newly expressed protein
up-to-date search for homology to proteins known to cause adverse effects
information on the stability of the protein
data concerning the resistance of the newly expressed protein to proteolytic enzymes
repeated dose toxicity studies using laboratory animals
Whole food testing (if GM plant is substantially modified)

Food Allergens
Individual and uncommon reaction due to the production of antibodies to a food protein.
Typical responses are in gut, skin and airways. Worst reaction – anaphylactic shock, can be rapidly fatal.
Commonest sources: Tree nuts, peanuts, shellfish, fish, milk, eggs, wheat, soybeans, latex-like proteins.
Case 2: Novel proteins – non-food source that has no history of allergenicity e.g. bacteria:
No single predictive test exists for allergenicity.

Weight-of-Evidence approach:
* Amount
* Stability
*Heat/cooking
* Digestion
* Molecular characteristics of protein
* Size
* Sequence homology to know allergens
* Improved animal models for human allergenicity?
* Labeling of foods (typical approach with known allergens)?


*Nutritional consideration
* Assessment should include:
* the nutritional relevance of newly expressed proteins and other new constituents;
*the changes in the levels of endogenous constituents in the GM plant and derived food and feed;
* the potential alterations in the total diet for the consumers/animals.

Jacquelin  ikeotuonye - Rose I don't know why you are deviating from the main issue. I had wanted to watch this debate from the gallery, but you decided to 'pull' me out from there. Why is it that whenever concerns about safety of GMO foods are raised, you and your cohorts get very uncomfortable and resort to mudslinging and blackmail??? You and your colleagues are the ones being sponsored by the owners of the gmo seeds, that much you acknowledged on your website, or you think if you make your frivolous claims of me and my partners being "under the pay of chemical companies", we will be distracted from the fact that NBMA and NABDA embarked on this gap journey without first thinking of the long term implications on Nigerians and Nigeria.

NBMA came into operation in 2015, and what was the first assignment they carried out? Issue permits to Monsanto for commercialization of the gmo cotton and field trial of their maize... I don't even have time to go into all that now.

But you are aware that you and your allies have been carrying out your field trials for some years now, and probably secretly feeding Nigerians with your samples, and since "nobody died" according to your conclusion, then gmo is safe. Rose I am going to take you up on the ethical concerns concerning gmos which you guys always want to avoid. All we hear is how gmo will feed Nigerians and make farmers rich, is that all that matters??

You guys are spending money, organizing seminars here and there, running adverts, giving the impression that all is well, if you guys do not have anything hide, create the proper forum, using those your resources, assuming it came from your budget, let Nigerians hear all sides, but of course, you dare not, even when we manage to bulldoze our way into your seminars with your arrangee speakers, you and your team ensure that opposing views are not aired! How long do you think Nigerians can be fooled???

We are challenging NBMA, NABDA to a national debate on this issue. I really don't have the energy for this facebook talk, because I don't know how many Nigerians even go to your page and if you guys are sincere, you would accept this challenge rather than sneaking in and out of media houses to promote your 'goods'!!! I'm waiting!!!

Rose Gidado- Sneaking in and out of media houses? Just the way you do all the time. National debate ke? Well, we are always ready. We just finished one. Scientific innovations will continue to come up to solve emerging challenges.

Charles ikeotuonye - Dr. Gidado, don’t degrade this issue to tacit speculation and classical conjecture. Substantial Equivalence was introduced in 1993 by OECD and later adopted by WHO and FAO.
Look at how OECD defined it; 

‘’The concept of substantial equivalence embodies the idea that existing organisms used as foods, or as a source of food, can be used as the basis for comparism when assessing the safety of human consumption of a food or food component that has been modified or is new’’ 

Substantial equivalence is just an idea, opinion, theoretical reasoning. Is science now based on idea, opinion, and reasoning? We just can’t be using economic opinion as solid scientific opinion. Substantial equivalence can even be used to show that a corpse is substantially equivalent to a living being. We are talking about proper safety and toxicological testing.

Dr. Gidado, talk is cheap. All those ‘’safety nets’’ you listed are quiet interesting. If these biological safe nets are enough to help us assess the impact of GMOs, how come you people are still carrying the banner of substantial equivalence? Is it a substitute? When Monsanto sent in their application seeking approval for the environmental release of Bollgard II; it was granted by NBMA. I have a question for you. Did you people pass Bollgard II through these ‘’safety nets’’ and if you did, show us where the complete result was published so that we can review it? Show it to Dehinde. As a scientist, I challenge you to show Nigerians that Bollgard II was subjected to all those tests you listed and that the product survived these tests.
Save