On a typical morning in a farming community somewhere between Makurdi and Zaria, a smallholder farmer walks through his field and already knows what the season will look like. Not because he can predict the rain — no one can anymore — but because experience has taught him the pattern: insects will come early, rains will stop abruptly, fertiliser will be expensive, and harvest will likely fall short of expectations.
This is the quiet reality behind Nigeria’s food crisis. It is not simply a matter of producing food; it is a struggle against weather uncertainty, pests, soil fatigue, rising input costs, and an ever-growing population. Across the country, millions of households now spend most of their income just to eat, while farmers who should be feeding the nation barely recover their production costs.
Yet at the very moment when science is offering tools to ease this pressure, the national conversation is often trapped in arguments that generate more heat than clarity.
Nigeria is an agricultural nation by identity and necessity. But the farms are no longer keeping pace with the mouths they must feed. Food prices have surged repeatedly, and hunger has quietly expanded from vulnerable regions into urban centres. Families that once worried about school fees now worry about daily meals.
The problem is structural. Farmers rely largely on traditional crop varieties that were developed for a different era — one with more predictable rainfall, fewer invasive pests, and less environmental stress. Today’s farming conditions are harsher. Heat waves scorch crops mid-season. New pest outbreaks spread across entire regions. Floods wipe out lowland farms while drought cripples upland ones.
Under these pressures, yields stagnate while demand rises. The result is a widening gap filled by imports and inflation.
Nigeria is therefore not merely facing a temporary shortage; it is confronting a productivity ceiling.
Modern biotechnology offers a way to break that ceiling.
Unlike conventional breeding, which can take decades to achieve modest improvements, biotechnology allows scientists to develop crop varieties designed specifically for present-day challenges. Seeds can be built to withstand drought, resist destructive insects, and maintain stable yields even when weather conditions fluctuate.
For farmers, this changes the economics of survival. Crops that resist pests reduce the need for repeated pesticide spraying, saving both money and labour. Plants that tolerate erratic rainfall reduce the risk of total crop failure. Stable yields mean predictable income — and predictable income means families can plan beyond the next harvest.
Beyond productivity, these technologies can also address nutrition. Crops can be improved to contain higher levels of essential nutrients, helping combat hidden hunger — the widespread deficiency of vitamins and minerals that affects millions even when food is available.
In short, biotechnology does not simply grow more food; it grows more reliable food, safer livelihoods, and healthier diets.
Despite these potential benefits, the national discussion around biotechnology is often dominated by suspicion rather than understanding.
Public debates frequently frame the technology as foreign, unsafe, or imposed. Complex scientific processes are reduced to slogans, and fear travels faster than explanation. Social media amplifies claims that rarely engage with the evidence, leaving many citizens unsure whom to trust.
This confusion has consequences. Farmers hesitate to adopt improved seeds. Policymakers proceed cautiously under public pressure. Approval processes stretch longer than necessary. And each planting season passes with farmers still relying on vulnerable crop varieties.
The issue is not disagreement — debate is healthy in any society — but distraction. When conversations revolve around misconceptions rather than facts, progress slows while hunger does not.
Every delay carries a price that is rarely measured in policy discussions.
It appears in rising food import bills as domestic production struggles to keep pace. It shows up in malnutrition statistics among children whose diets lack diversity. It emerges in farmer incomes that stagnate despite rising effort. And it surfaces in national inflation figures driven largely by food prices.
Most importantly, it affects resilience. Countries that adapt their agriculture to climate realities stabilize their food supply. Those that hesitate become increasingly dependent on external markets and vulnerable to global price shocks.
Time, therefore, is not neutral. Waiting is itself a decision — one that favours scarcity over preparation.
Nigeria already has regulatory institutions and scientific expertise capable of guiding safe adoption of biotechnology. The challenge is less about capability and more about alignment: aligning public understanding with scientific evidence, aligning policy speed with agricultural urgency, and aligning national debate with national needs.
Farmers need access to reliable information as much as they need improved seeds. Citizens deserve transparent communication rather than polarised rhetoric. And policymakers require the confidence that comes from an informed public discourse.
Biotechnology alone will not solve all agricultural problems. Infrastructure, storage, extension services, and markets remain essential. But without productivity gains at the farm level, every other intervention struggles to keep pace with demand.
Nigeria’s food future will be determined not only in laboratories or farms, but in conversations — in classrooms, media platforms, policy rooms, and community meetings.
The country can continue circling fear-driven arguments while food shortages intensify. Or it can engage the science directly, weigh evidence responsibly, and deploy available tools alongside other agricultural reforms.
Modern biotechnology is not a miracle solution, nor is it a threat to be feared. It is a practical instrument — one among several — for producing more food under harder conditions.
In a nation where hunger is rising and climate uncertainty is becoming normal, the greatest risk may not be adopting new technology but delaying it while debating what has already been carefully studied.
The harvest Nigeria secures tomorrow depends on the clarity of the decisions it makes today.