Kayode Ojewale
It does appear the government at the centre is playing the
ostrich over its continued silence on the controversy trailing the back and
forth arguments between two of its agencies on the use or ban of methyl bromide
(an agrochemical used as soil sterilant and pesticide) by farmers for pest
control. While the controversy has been on for about four months, the
ministries which birthed these agencies are yet to give official statement of
clarification to guide the farmers and manufacturers of agricultural produce in
the country aright. These two agencies which have overlapping responsibilities
in areas of our food and health have differed in their opinion and submission
on the use of methyl bromide pesticide. These opposing views and directives
held by the two agencies from the Ministries of Health and Agriculture must
have delayed the decisions of some farmers who use the agrochemical for crop
pest control.
In February this year, the National Agency for Food and Drug
Administration and Control (NAFDAC), an agency under the control of the Federal
Ministry of Health, announced the placing of a ban on the use of methyl bromide
for pest control with reason being that the use of the agrochemical contributes
to depletion of Ozone layer. According to NAFDAC, methyl bromide is colourless,
odourless, noncorrosive and non-flammable, highly toxic to a broad spectrum of
insects from egg to adult stage and it was primarily used as fumigant in stored
product pest management. The agency added in its press release: “Methyl bromide
is a class I Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS)...Methyl bromide is a scheduled
chemical under the Montreal Protocol for substances that deplete the Ozone
layer and was placed on a phase-out procedure from 2001. Nigeria effected the
phase-out of methyl bromide by January 2015 and since then the product has not
been permitted for importation into the country.”
Apart from contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer,
NAFDAC further revealed that methyl bromide is an extremely toxic vapour which
is readily absorbed through the lungs in humans by inhalation. The agrochemical
is regarded by NAFDAC as a dangerous poison which damages the nervous system
when inhaled. The agency therefore advised farmers, agro-input dealers, and
exporters of agricultural produce in the country to use alternative pesticides
which are safer, cheaper and more effective. Farmers and those concerned were
also encouraged to contact the nearest NAFDAC office for advice on safer
alternatives to methyl bromide.
However, in a swift reaction to the announcement made by
NAFDAC on methyl bromide ban, the Nigeria Agricultural Quarantine Service
(NAQS), an agency under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural development, argued that the use of the agrochemical is still
permissible for controlled quarantine due to lack of suitable alternatives in
Nigeria. NAQS said its agency is the statutory agricultural quarantine
authority in Nigeria and that NAFDAC overstepped its mandate to have issued a
ban on the use of methyl bromide as pest control or fumigant. NAQS is of the
opinion that it is within her purview to make pronouncement on the
permissibility or otherwise of methyl bromide and other agrochemicals for
phytosanitary treatment of agro-commodities. Recall that NAQS is saddled with
the responsibilities of preventing the introduction, establishment and
propagation of animal and plant diseases. According to NAQS, it is mandated to
promote and regulate sanitary and phytosanitary measures in order to minimise
the risk to agricultural economy, food safety and the environment.
Dr Vincent Isegbe, the Director General of NAQS, admitted
that all agrochemicals are potentially harmful if not used safely. He added
that the major concern of methyl bromide use is the effect on climate change,
particularly on the depletion of ozone layer, and that exemption has been
provided for individual countries on its usage based on special quota system by
the Montreal Protocol. The NAQS DG, in order to buttress his point on the
continued use of methyl bromide, cited that Mexico specifically requests the
use of the agrochemical in the treatment of Hibiscus shipments to their
country. According to the DG, in 2017 alone, the trade yielded Nigeria over
35million dollars within nine months.
Few days ago, in a statement signed by NAFDAC boss, Prof
Mojisola Adeyeye, the agency reiterated and reaffirmed once again that the use
of methyl bromide as fumigant is banned and remains banned in Nigeria. The
agency said in exercising her mandate as entrenched in NAFDAC Act Cap N1 LFN
2004, it had to draw the attention of the general public to the ban.
We therefore urge the ministries supervising these agencies
to stop the needless media war between NAFDAC and NAQS over the use or ban of
methyl bromide as fumigant. Since human health is involved, the argument over
whose purview it is to announce the ban of such poisonous pesticide is
unacceptable. These are professional agencies that the public rely on for
information, guidance, and directives on issues relating to food and health.
And as such, nothing short of the best is expected from them. The Ministry of
Environment is also expected to wade in to make further clarifications on the environmental
effects of using the agrochemical as fumigant.
The concerned
ministries should as a matter of urgency engage scientific experts and seek
legal advice in taking a final decision on this issue. In order to reach a
consensus, we advise the federal government to prevail on the two disagreeing
agencies by carefully considering their reasons for and against the use of
methyl bromide as pest control.
If the two lead agencies that are established to safeguard
public health are unable to reach a logical conclusion or provide a uniform
solution, and are at loggerheads with each other by overruling their directives
on a national issue that affects all, then Nigerians should brace for a longer
time of confusion in our health and agricultural sectors.
The methyl bromide argument should not be supremacy-based as
suggestively implied by NAQS, rather it ought to be that which is laced with
scientifically backed-up reasons in the overall health interest of the Nigerian
populace. This way, even the layman will be convinced to take a well-informed
decision about his food and health. Our health far outweighs the monetary
benefits we stand to gain from any trade or transaction that comes with a
potential health hazard. Things must be done in a proper way regardless of the
agency or ministry involved or profit it stands to make. In the end, it is our
health that matters, not the money we have acquired or amassed.
Kayode Ojewale writes in via kayodeojewale@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment