Academy of Science has endorsed GMO ??
The Nigerian Academy of Science recently endorsed the country’s experimenting with Genetically Modified Organisms/Foods, generally known as GMO/GMF reports Greg Odogwu
According to him,it is sad that the GMO controversy found Nigeria in such a situation as we are today. There is now a thin line between fiction and reality. Truth is, both the proponents and opponents of GMO can splice the two and effectively deny Nigerians the opportunity of knowing the true situation of things. Note that I did not say “knowing the truth”; because in the issue of personal, and national, survival truth can be elusive.
Like I have always maintained, GMO is a new technology we must be extremely strategic in adopting as a country. Not only should we be environmentally conscious in its consideration, all parties involved must be very patriotic. At a closer observation, one can easily notice that both sides of the GMO divide are dancing to the drumbeats of an invisible player.
The proponents of GMO in Nigeria have alleged that the hue and cry against GMO adoption is articulated and sponsored by individuals and non-governmental organizations that are not well-versed in the application of science. That this group of activists over the last decade continually propagated messages calculated to instill fears in the minds of Nigerians using the media landscape to spread the unscientific rumours about GMOs.
The anti-GMO activists on the other hand, maintain that the progress of GMO approval in the country and its mainstreaming in the agricultural sector is orchestrated and bank-rolled by multinational giants from the Western world who are targeting the large market potential of the country.
Dec 08 2016
Elimination of GMO Crops Would Cause Hike in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source: Purdue University (4 Nov 2016) |
Author: Natalie van Hoose |
A new study from Purdue University, United States, finds that a global ban on genetically modified (GM) crops would raise food prices and result in the addition of nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The researchers assessed a world in which GMO corn, soybeans and cotton were replaced with conventionally bred varieties worldwide. The change would lead to a 0.27 to 2.2 percent increase in food costs, depending on the region, with poorer countries suffering the most. Moreover, a ban on GMOs would lead, the researchers say, to conversion of pastures and forests to cropland, releasing substantial amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere. Conversely, the researchers found that if countries already planting GMOs expanded their use to match that of the U.S., global greenhouse gas emissions would fall by the equivalent of 0.2 billion tons of CO2, and return 0.8 million hectares of cropland to forest and pasture. “Some of the same groups that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also want to ban GMOs. But you can’t have it both ways,” said Wally Tyner, a professor of agricultural economics. “Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint.” Tyner added that the economic consequences of a GMO ban were not surprising to him, but the toll such a ban would have on the environment, was. “It’s quite fine for people to be concerned about GMOs – there’s no scientific basis to those concerns, but that’s their right,” he said. “But the adverse impact on greenhouse gases without GMOs is something that is not widely known. It is important that this element enter into the public conversation.” The team’s findings were published in the Journal of Environmental Protection. more
source=Meridian institute |
Nigeria bans genetically-modified food
In a step that suggests further more decisive action, the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) has issued a seven-day ultimatum to department stores in the Federal Capital Territory to withdraw all Genetically Modified (GM) food items from their shelves.
The Director General of the agency, Rufus Ebegba, gave the ultimatum in Abuja on Friday during a meeting with department store operators in the FCT.
Mr. Ebegba said the move was in line with the mandate of the agency to ensure safety of human health and the environment.
The director general said the agency would not hesitate to shut down or prosecute the management of any departmental store that failed to abide by the directive or contravened its Act.
He said the meeting was to intimate the operators on the provisions of the Act establishing the agency so that they would not feign ignorance of it.
“This is in line with the Act of the agency to refocus Nigeria in the area of modern biotechnology practice to ensure proper regulation for safety of human consumption and the environment.
According to him, no GMO should be in any of the supermarket stores, either labelled or not, until permits are obtained from the agency.
“We have segmented our meeting with stakeholders particularly those in the food and agriculture sector.
“This meeting is for them to understand that some of their products need to be properly ascertained before they are imported so that they will not run foul of the law.
“We are aware that some of these stores import foods from countries that are already consuming GMs.
“We understand the economic benefits of these stores to the Nigerian economy, especially in the areas of job creation and markets, but we must know that the law is not a respecter of persons.
“The idea that Nigerian laws are not being implemented by government agencies should be ruled out of this.
“NBMA will not make the mistake in the enforcement of this. We are very serious about this,’’ he said.
Mr. Ebegba said the agency was currently working with the National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) and National Agriculture Quarantine Service (NAQS) to ensure that permits were adequately issued.
Umar Yahaya, the Customer Service/Surveillance Manager of NEXT Cash and Carry Mall, appealed to the agency to provide guidelines for the permit to enable operators comply with the laws.
Mr. Yahaya, who declined further comments, said that appropriate measures would be taken by the management of the store.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that representatives from Shoprite, a South African-based chain stores operating across the country also attended the meeting.
(NAN)
ORGANIC receives a boost as US commits ($56 Million) for Food Projects, Organic Research
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Latest Investments to Connecting Consumers to Their Food While Creating New Market Opportunities for Producers |
NEW YORK, Sept. 28, 2016 – At the New York Times Food for Tomorrow Conference, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced more than $56 million in grants to strengthen local and regional food systems, support farmers markets, and fund organic research. Since 2009, USDA has invested over $1 billion in more than 40,000 local food businesses and infrastructure projects. |
- $21.4 million for Organic Research and Extension Program grants for 26 projects to help organic farmers and ranchers improve business operations and bring more organic food to the table of consumers. The grants are funded through the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and the Organic Transitions Program (ORG), two programs administered by USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
In conjunction with the funding announcements, Vilsack announced $48.1 million in available fiscal year 2017 funding through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) to support systems-based research and extension activities that accelerate science-based solutions and new technology for the specialty crop industry. Specialty crops are defined as fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and horticulture and nursery crops, including floriculture. The Specialty Crop Research Initiative was authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill to invest in long-term solutions that address problems in the overlapping systems of production, distribution and processing, and consumers and markets.
USDA is committed to helping organic agriculture grow and thrive. USDA strongly supports the organic sector through a wide variety of programs, including conservation grants, organic crop insurance, certification cost-share, organic market news, and simplified microloans. To learn more about USDA support for organic agriculture, visit the updated organic portal at www.usda.gov/organic.
29 Sept 2016
ALARM !!!=Antibiotics in food now on par with AIDS and Ebola ????
For the fourth time in its history, the United Nations has elevated a health issue to crisis level.The UN General Assembly held a high-level meeting earlier this week (Sept. 21) to address how antibiotics have become less useful when treating human illnesses caused by bacteria. In its 70 year history the General Assembly has called similar meetings to discuss HIV, the rise of non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, and Ebola.By pushing antibiotic resistance front-and-center as a global problem, the international body has acknowledged that some of the miracles of modern medicine—including the invention of penicillin and tetracyclines—are at risk of becoming ineffective. Already the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 23,000 people die in the US each year as a direct result of antibiotic resistance. Some of those deaths were from illnesses once easily treated with the drugs, including MRSA and some E. coli infections.At the core of the crisis sits animal agriculture, which includes the some 9 billion food animals slaughtered in the US each year. For years, food companies and farmers have used antibiotics not only to treat sick animals, but also to feed them a steady diet of the drugs to prevent illnesses.Public health advocacy groups have pushed on the federal government to crack down on how farmers use drugs, but the government has been slow to act in a meaningful way. Food companies are not especially transparent about what drugs are being used on different species and how they are being used, and the government mandates little be made public.Some of the biggest pressure on farm practice changes comes from corporate America, which has responded to consumer demand for foods from animals not treated with antibiotics. A new report published this week (Sept. 20) by the Natural Resources Defense Council and a coalition of other advocacy groups shows that in just the last year, the number of US fast food chains that have adopted supply chain policies aimed at reducing the on-farm use of antibiotics for the meat products they sell has doubled.The NRDC each year rates the 25 biggest fast food chains on their antibiotic policies and transparency. This year’s report shows several mammoth restaurant chains successfully implemented new policies to force their meat producers to change how they use on-farm drugs, including McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Subway, and Chick-fil-A. It also highlights companies that continue to maintain abysmal records, including Dunkin’ Donuts, KFC, and Olive Garden—all three received “F” grades, the lowest. Some of the other findings in the report include:
- Subway, Chick-fil-A, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Taco Bell are on track to prohibit the routine use of antibiotics in their chicken supply. The NRDC said those companies have made real progress in implementing that policy.
- Perdue Farms, Tyson Foods, and Foster Farms have committed to eliminate routine antibiotics use across all of their chicken farms. Pilgrim’s Pride remains a straggler.
- KFC is a major chicken buyer but has yet to commit to a more responsible policy.
Currently there’s a global patchwork of antibiotic use enforcement, which means farm animal producers operate differently in different countries. That makes it difficult for restaurants such as McDonald’s and others to commit to eliminating antibiotics from meat sources in places with poor antibiotic track records, such as China, the world’s second largest economy and a key area for growth.There have been some signs of hope in China. In October 2015, the Chinese government instituted a strict new food safety law, which included more oversight over production practices (though nothing specific to antibiotics has been discussed yet). And on Sept. 18, the country announced it would spend $450 billion by 2020 to modernize its agricultural sector, according to Reuters.The UN General Assembly’s 193 member states this week signed a declaration committing to the fight against resistance, though the details have yet to be hashed out.Health advocates, including at the Pew Charitable Trusts, have said they expect many countries will look to the US to take the lead in determining how best to best tackle resistance. The progress made by US food chains is a start; the key will be applying those same standards to sources abroad.“It can’t be the end of the discussion,” said Gail Hansen, a veterinarian and expert in antibiotic resistance, referring to the pressure put on the US supply chain by fast-food giants. “Companies should have the social responsibility to do what they can in other countries.”P Onwuliri
Bill Gates Denounces GM Foods
Bill Gates has denounced the production and consumption of Genetically Modified foods. He claimed not to be involved in scientific research but in improving food productivity and enhance human health and reduce poverty. He spoke through Dr Audu Grema, the Senior Programme Officer, Agriculture in the West African Office of the Foundation
This was reported in The Vanguard newspaper of Wednesday 14 Sept 2016. On the reports that Gates was a major propagator of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), the programme officer refuted the assertion, saying that the Bill Gates had no connection with GMOs. According to him, Bill Gates has no interest to promote agribusiness, so we are denying that we did not bring GMOs into Nigeria. “Bill and Melinda Gates are not farmers; they are not into agricultural services; so, to think they will promote GMOs just to promote their businesses interest is very wrong. “I will be in complete denial that we have nothing to do with these big commercial agricultural farms that have been cited in some of the articles in Nigeria. “The foundation does not have anything to do with GMOs even in Nigeria and abroad. “No connection with the big industrial agricultural concerns which people are alluding to. “People making such assertions are morally wrong,’’ he said. Grema commended the `Green Alternative’ currently launched by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. He said the agricultural initiative was a step toward fighting poverty and food security in Nigeria.
Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/09/bill-gates-foundation-moves-boost-rice-yam-production-nigeria/
Comment=Will this information change the next direction of discussion?
DF 9/16
Is it TRUE ?? Takeover of Mission Hospitals in NIGERIA
Monsanto’s Plot to Takeover Nigeria’s Agriculture and Our Policy Response, By Jibrin Ibrahim
Premium Times July 25, 2016 Monsanto’s Plot to Takeover Nigeria’s Agriculture and Our Policy Response, By Jibrin Ibrahim columns, Democracy and Governance, Jibrin Ibrahim Comment (9)
The Ministry of Agriculture is proposing that agricultural research in the country should receive massive support. Our governments would engage its research institutions and bodies at different locations in the country, to conduct research for increased agricultural productivity and to make the research results available to farmers and other actors in the agricultural development of the states. That is the way to go.
As everyone knows, one American company called Monsanto has been on a determined march to take over agricultural production all over the world and enslave all farmers and countries to their commercial blood sucking logic. They have finally found a bridgehead into Nigeria where a door has been opened to allow them enter and takeover. They have been allowed to initiate so-called experimental farms to produce cotton and maize. Their point of entry has been the irresponsible National Biotechnology Development Agency, which has been compromised by Monsanto to provide an entry point to takeover our agriculture.
This week, I write to support the great work currently being carried out by Nnimmo Bassey and his team at the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) to resist the dangerous takeover of our agriculture by Monsanto. The Foundation has exposed the fact that GMOs have been approved to be grown in Nigeria and that the approval was surreptitious. There is an argument whether the approval was for a two-year trial process or for permanent production and for me, both most be opposed. At no time has the Nigerian government taken a policy decision to approve GMOs, and given the health dangers alone of this technology, it is irresponsible to allow this. We cannot allow the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) to sell our future for some temporary inducement they have received from Monsanto. How was it allowed that Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Ltd would register in the country and start production without explicit approval of the Federal Executive Council and the National Assembly.
Burkina Faso, which took the lead on GMO production in Africa, decided this year to abandoned its GMO cotton, citing the inferior lint quality of Monsanto products and the enslavement of buying expensive seeds and chemicals from the company each year for an income that is less than what they were having before introducing it. It would be recalled that for a long time, Burkinabé cotton was renowned for its high quality following a highly successful non-GM breeding programme founded by the French government and spanning 70 years. The main goal of the breeding programme was to create cultivars that were well adapted to the growing conditions in West Africa and had the desired quality characteristics, such as a high ginning ratio, which is the percentage of the desired cotton fibre per unit weight of cotton delivered to the factory and long staple length. They foolishly decided to abandon the home grown approach and follow the GMO route of Monsanto and after six years of commercial production, they discovered that the quality and world market price of their cotton had plummeted. Cotton is the second-biggest source of revenue for the impoverished West African country after gold. It is this same GMO cotton that failed in Burkina Faso that is now being introduced to Nigeria.
It is unfortunate that Bill Gates with his America First mentality is sponsoring Monsanto’s Water Efficient Maize for Africa, a five-year development project led by the Kenyan-based African Agricultural Technology Foundation, which aims to develop a variety of drought-tolerant maize seeds. Why will he not invest in the Institute of Agricultural Research project in Ahmadu Bello University that is developing draught resistant maize that does not have the dangers of what Monsanto is doing?
I therefore call on the Ministers of Agriculture and the Environment to call the National Biosafety Management Agency to order and to withdraw the authorisation issued for the production of GMO crops in Nigeria. Given our fragile ecosystems and stressed environment, we must take our biosafety seriously and avoid the path of introducing crops that are dangerous to the health of our people and our environment. Nineteen European countries that care about the health of their people have completely banned genetically modified crops. Even the Russian State Duma last month passed a bill banning all import and production of genetically modified organisms in the country. We must not allow Nigeria to be turned into a dumping ground for what sensible countries are rejecting. Sincere scientists have shown evidence that Monsanto’s crops are genetically enhanced to tolerate the use of the herbicide glyphosate which was declared as a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The current Monsanto project to grow glyphosate infused maize in Nigeria is a direct threat to our health. Recent studies have linked glyphosate to health effects such as degeneration of the liver and kidney, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It is unfortunate that Bill Gates with his America First mentality is sponsoring Monsanto’s Water Efficient Maize for Africa, a five-year development project led by the Kenyan-based African Agricultural Technology Foundation, which aims to develop a variety of drought-tolerant maize seeds. Why will he not invest in the Institute of Agricultural Research project in Ahmadu Bello University that is developing draught resistant maize that does not have the dangers of what Monsanto is doing?
I have just read Chief Audu Ogbeh’s Agriculture Promotion Policy 2016-2020 which outlines an excellent strategic approach to addressing the two key gaps in our agriculture today: an inability to meet domestic food requirements, and an inability to export at quality levels required for market success. The former problem is a productivity challenge driven by an input system and farming model that is largely inefficient. As a result, an aging population of farmers who do not have enough seeds, fertilisers, irrigation, crop protection and related support to be successful. The latter challenge is driven by an equally inefficient system for setting and enforcing food quality standards, as well as poor knowledge of target markets. Insufficient food testing facilities, a weak inspectorate system in the Ministry, and poor coordination among relevant federal agencies serve to compound early stage problems such as poor knowledge of permissible contaminant levels.
The strategy he proposes is to address the challenges of food insecurity and the economic costs of importing $3 to $5 billion worth of food annually, especially wheat, rice, fish and sundry items, including fresh fruits by looking inward. The Ministry of Agriculture is proposing that agricultural research in the country should receive massive support. Our governments would engage its research institutions and bodies at different locations in the country, to conduct research for increased agricultural productivity and to make the research results available to farmers and other actors in the agricultural development of the states. That is the way to go. Was it not just a couple of weeks ago that the Institute of Agricultural Research of Ahmadu Bello University found a cure for the terrible blight of the tomato Ebola disease that wiped out fresh stew from our homes recently. Let’s empower our research institutes for our own good.
A professor of Political Science and development consultant/expert, Jibrin Ibrahim is a Senior Fellow of the Centre for Democracy and Development, and Chair of the Editorial Board of Premium Times.
CALL FOR A SUSTAINABLE PESTICIDE STRATEGY FOR NIGERIA
According to UNEP, poisonings from industrial and agricultural chemicals are among the top five leading causes of death worldwide, contributing to more than a million deaths every year. “Certain chemicals restrict and interfere in human development and can impair both physical and mental growth, as well as ability to learn.”[1] That over 600 NGOs exist today for the purpose of campaigning against the use/misuse of chemical pesticides is a clear indication of a growing worldwide concern that these chemicals indeedpose severe danger to man and the environment.
Pest and infection burden robs our citizens engaged in agriculture and the larger economy vital revenues. Fungi are ubiquitous plant pathogens that are major spoilage agents of foods and feedstuffs.[2]Fungal infection and contamination of stored foods has been well documented. That close to 40% of crops are lost due to some kind of pests before harvest and some 10% post harvest[3] should indeed be of serious concern. Reports from Nigeria[4] indicate that over 50% of yam tubers produced and harvested in Nigeria are lost in storage. Sometimes in October 2014, about 500 hectres of potato farmland was massively attacked by a potato blight disease in Plateau State.”[5]Just recently tomato farmers across several states in Nigeria suffered severe losses running into several billions of Naira, as a result of the Tuta absoluta disease. Several rice farmers from different states have equally called out for help, as a result of pests devastation.
Available control measures have not only proved inadequate and unsustainable, but have worsened the already appalling disease burden and led to further degradation of our environment. For example,the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are between 10,000-20,000 occupational pesticide poisonings annually in the United States of America. The WHO further estimates that pesticides contribute up to 1million deaths globally with developing countries like Nigeria bearing a disproportionate share. Authorities in Nigeria report that pesticide poisoning causes about 3million acute food poisoning and over 20,000 deaths in Nigeria annually. According to a U.N. report, “The potential cost of pesticide-related illnesses in sub-Saharan African between 2005 and 2020 could reach $90 billion.” The estimated cost of pesticide poisoning exceeds the total amount of international aid for basic health services for the region.[6]How dire can the situation possibly get? “Until safe pesticides are developed and made affordable for occupational use, workers will continue to be exposed to potentially harmful chemicals.”[7]Children are at even more higher risk because far lower concentrations of chemicals will trigger adverse health effects. “Pollution and disease related to the unsustainable use, production and disposal of chemicals can, in fact, hinder progress towards key development targets by affecting water supplies, food security, well-being or worker productivity.”[8]
Many NGOs areinvolved in a global campaign for policies and standards that ensure “chemicals are used only in ways that preserve the health of communities and protect the integrity of the environment for present and future generations”.[9] This would include a ban on those substances deemed highly hazardous.
“Pesticide” is an umbrella term that includes many kinds of chemicals, natural and synthetic. A pesticide is any substance intended to control, destroy, repel, or attract a pest. Any living organism that causes damage, economic loss, transmits or produces disease may be the target pest.[10] Some of the most common pesticides include insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, molluscicides, fungicides, repellents, disinfectants and sanitizers.[11]
Pesticides are toxic by design – they are BIOCIDES, designed to kill, reduce or repelinsects, weeds, rodents, fungi or other organisms that can threaten public health and theeconomy.[12]
WHAT ARE THE USES OF PESTICIDES?
- Crop-protection: it is reported that close to 40% of crops are lost due to some kind of pests before harvest and some 10% after it. Pesticides have played and continue play a big role in the agricultural industry.[13]
- Non-crop protection: forestry, gardening, leisure, industrial pest control, residential, animal health and pet products.
- Food preservation
- Material preservation
- Disease control
PESTICIDE USE IN AGRICULTURE
Pesticide use in agriculture dates back to the 1940s. Although pesticides can be beneficial in boosting food production, “yet many times their detrimental effects outweigh the positive ones”.Use of pesticides tends to be more intense and unsafe in developing countries, whereregulatory; health and education systems are weaker.[14] Their usage requires thorough knowledge, stringent regulation and strict compliance with strenuous safety measures. These fundamentals are often lacking in the developing countries. Pesticides can be extremely hazardous to the human body and other living organisms, as they are designed to be a poison.“The more chemicals you use, the more risk of exposure due to application and the more risk of contamination and exposure of Nigerians to the harmful effects of chemicals.”[15]Currently an estimated 3.2 million tones[16] of pesticides are used each year.
The farmers face a predicament because pest and fungi infections are of serious concern. With about 50% of crops losses, our farmers face very difficult problem. In an attempt to address these challenges several potentially harmful pesticides (fungicides) have been unleashed on our environment with little or no control measures, leaving the citizens’ health and the overall environment worse-off. With over 70% of Nigeria’s workforce engaged in agriculture, many of whom are illiterates, who cannot read product labels or instructions, abuse is certainly the order of the day, and the consequences (health, environment and the economy) are simply dreadful.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We strongly recommend that a National Pesticide Strategybe put in place urgently in order to address all concerns relating to pesticide importation, production, storage and usage. Some of the major areas to be addressed include:
- Evaluation of health impacts of pesticides through risk assessment and illness surveillance. Comprehensive assessments of pesticide risks to all populations (workers, children, other sensitive groups) from exposure via air, water, and food, and in the home and workplace. All reported pesticide-related illnesses should be well investigated and data should be used to evaluate its regulatory program and to fine-tune safety rules.
- Monitoring potential health and environmental impacts of previously registered pesticides, helping find ways to prevent future contamination.
- Residue testing of fresh fruit and vegetables, sampling domestic and imported produce from wholesale and retail outlets, distribution centers, and farmers markets.
- Through grants, awards and regulatory incentives, the government should support development and adoption of pest management practices designed to encourage reductions in chemical pesticide use in favour of more natural pest controls, and to reduce or eliminate harmful environmental and health impacts of chemical pesticides.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
It is no secret that the world is going “GREEN” now in as many products and processes as possible, and the reasons have been well enumerated. So much is at stake and failure to act quickly enough only exacerbates the situation.
- Rating/Grading of pesticide brands based on toxicological data
- Greater emphasisor preference for safer, organic pesticides
- Stronger support for local production of organic pesticides
- Stricter restriction or possible ban of highly toxic pesticides that have already been banned in other countries (especially in Europe)
- Licensing of Applicators of toxic synthetic pesticides
- Demand for greater accountability by importers/manufacturers of toxic pesticides
- Promotion of integrated pest management (IPM) approach
- Proactive pest control/management approach should be pursued rather than the present reactive approach
- Adoption of advanced pest control technologies
- Increased Budgetary provision for agricultural disease monitoring and control
Suffice to say that leaving highly toxic pesticides in the hands of ignorant farmers only creates an even worse problem than the pest infestation. The use and/or misuse of synthetic pesticides is affecting not only the environment, but also the sources of water, biodiversity and most importantly people’s health. Providing sustainable “green” alternatives is a global objective. Nigeria cannot afford to be left out because the consequences could be even more terrifying.
Companies/organizations engaged in the manufacture of this needed sustainable alternatives to CHEMICAL PESTICIDES/FUNGICIDES/ DISINFECTANTS should be massively supported by the Government.
PATRICK ONWULIRI
P_onwuliri@yahoo.com
[1] UNEP
[2] Atanda et al
[3]Innovative Pesticides are What the World Needs Agranova. CCM China: Crop Protection Summit. March 2011.
[4] Onayemi, 1983
[5] The Eagle Online: “Blight Attacks 500 hectares of potato farms in Plateau” – Commissioner
[6] www.unep.org
[7] www.bulldoglawyers.com/legal-services
[8] UNEP
[9] www.pan-uk.org
[10]www.cdpr.ca.gov
[11] ibid
[12] WHO
[13]Innovative Pesticides are What the World Needs Agranova. CCM China: Crop Protection Summit. March 2011.
[14] ibid
[15] The Guardian
[16] EPA