Faculty of Business, Environment and Society

Course: MSc International Business

Coursework Title: COURSEWORK 2

By

Name: Onyekachi George Ezulike

Student ID: 3580383

Module: M05BSS

Module Title: Global Business in Emerging Regions

Due Date: 13TH May 2011

Module Leader: Suresh George

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. BRIEF HISTORY & INTRODUCTION…………………………….…2

2. SOME CRITICISMS OF GM CROPS & FOODS…………………….3

2.1 ECONOMIC CRITICISMS…………………………………………………………3

2.2 HEALTH ISSUES………………………………………………...…………………3

2.3 REDUCTION IN SKILL AND VARIETY…………………………………………4

3. CASSAVA & CASSAVA MARKET IN NIGERIA…………………….5

3.1 FLOUR…………………………………………………….………………………...6

3.2 STARCH…………………………………………………………………………….7

3.3 DOMESTIC SUPPLY……………………………………………………………….7

4. PEST ANALYSIS OF NIGERIA BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT……...8

4.1 POLITICAL/LEGAL………………………………………………………………...8

4.2 ECONOMIC………………………………………………………………………….9

4.3 SOCIAL……………………………………………………………………………..10

4.4 TECHNOLOGY…………………………………………………………………….11

5. SWOT ANALYSIS OF GM CASSAVA cum AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

IN NIGERIA…………………………………………………………………12

5.1 STRENGHTS………………………………………………………………………..12

5.2 WEAKNESSES……………………………………………………………………...12

5.3 OPPORTUNITIES…………………………………………………………………...13

5.4 THREATS……………………………………………………………………………13

6. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….13

7. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………….15

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS & FOODS: HUGE UNTAPPED

MARKET IN NIGERIA

1

1. BRIEF HISTORY & INTRODUCTION

In a broader perspective, agriculture (agro-food) industry contributes to the fulfillment of basic

human needs like food, shelter, energy and livelihood. Though it contributes less than 5% of the

world’s combined GDPs, this huge industry constitutes 42% of the world’s labor force. The

industry comprises of animal and plant production enterprises, including others who provide

associated support functions like Labor contracting, pest and disease management, or research and

development. This industry accounts for 26.8% of Nigeria’s GDP and employs 70% of Nigeria’s

workforce. The plant production arm comprises of greenhouses, nurseries; food crops like

groundnuts, maize, melon, palm oil, plantain, rice and cassava, and cash crops like cocoa,

soybean, kolanut, cotton, rubber etc. (globalEDGE 2010; motherlandnigeria 2002).

Genetically Modified foods & Crops (GM) are derivatives of Genetically Modified Organisms.

Through genetic engineering techniques, genetically modified organisms have had the

introduction of detailed changes into their DNA. GM foods and crops have been around since the

early 1990s; subsequently they have grown in both popularity and usage, especially in the US

where they account for up to 90% of soybeans, corn, and cotton acreage. However, GM foods

have also been the subject of many criticisms, the most popular ones being health issues/risks, as

well as economic and ecological implications (The National Academies Press 2011).

GMOs have come a long way and it is envisaged that the application of GMOs in the future will

see drug induced foods and crops, like bananas generating human vaccines that protect against

infectious diseases like Hepatitis B. Future application is also predicted in fishes, to make them

mature quickly through metabolic engineering (Kumar et al 2005).

Food is serious business globally, hence a vast subject. Therefore, for focus and simplicity, this

work is based on Genetically Modified Cassava in Nigeria. The Nigerian business environment

will be scrutinized and evaluated in terms of the macro environment (political/legal, economic,

social and Technology/ecology), problems and prospects, with the aid of PEST analysis. The

highlighted huge potential of genetically modified cassava, as a product, and the cassava industry

in Nigeria will be evaluated as well with the aid of SWOT analysis.

2

This is a case of a new product in a new market; therefore the business strategy will

constantly focus on the Nigerian market, with occasional comparative references to other

markets especially the US.

2. SOME CRITICISMS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS & FOODS

2.1 ECONOMIC CRITICISMS

Economically, critics have pointed out the adverse effects GM foods have on farmers,

regardless of the usage or otherwise of the GM technology. The hypothesized ‘effects’ meaning

reduction in their income and general personal wellbeing, as well as environmental resources

and production decisions. They believe that the economic and ecological benefits of GM foods

could be undermined by excessive dependence on one single GM technology, plus the lack of

alternatives (The National Academies Press 2011).

However, the GM foods have some herbicidal and insect pests resistance traits, thereby

reducing the loss of food crops to insects and pests, and this, according to some proponents, has

benefited farmers immensely, as well as the agricultural industry and the economy at large.

Some proponents claim that GE foods also tend to foster time management flexibility and the

use of pesticides and tillage methods that are more environmentally friendly, through the

reduction pesticide application and reduced soil erosion as a result of tilling (The National

Academies Press 2011).

Moreover, there is a widely held view that while GM is proven to be economically beneficial, it

only benefits large firms because allegedly multinational biotechnology firms tend to capture

all the economic values that GM crops create, on the contrary, the GM technology is ‘pro-poor’

and according to available evidence, adopting farmers, consumers, technology suppliers all

share in the benefits. Only the non-adopting farmers are left out in the achievement of

efficiency gains that GM crops provide and this is understandable (Raney 2006:1).

2.2 HEALTH ISSUES

Amidst growing criticism that GM foods are somewhat unsafe for consumption because of the

gene alteration involved in the process, FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

scrutinize and evaluate food safety data developed and submitted to it by the engineered foods

developers.

3

Though no specific tests are required by FDA to establish safety of GM foods, however, after

evaluation it acknowledges that the developers of GM foods have affirmed that it is safe.

Proponents state that GM foods are safe and more nutritious, while opponents of GM foods

argue that enough is not yet known about the safety of GM foods and therefore should

stringently controlled (United States General Accounting Office 2001:1).

Experts report presented to the US congress in May 2002 states that the inherent risks that GM

foods pose to human health is tantamount to their conventional counterparts, in that “they can

contain allergens, toxins and compounds” called anti-nutrients which constrains the absorption

of nutrients (United States General Accounting Office 2002:2). This means that the chemical

content and average risk involved in eating a naturally grown cassava and a GM cassava is

comparatively equal. It also means that the chemicals in naturally grown foods can sometimes

be out of place and therefore risky to consume as well.

Some people fear that just like any modern industrialization technique, some complications

ought to be involved, and they believe that the repercussion of any complication in GM foods

will be far more hazardous to make the perceived benefits negligible, because of the single fact

that they are edible. They fear that scientists might create or boost a food allergen or toxin

unknowingly. To prevent this, scientists, regulators and policy-makers in the US have agreed

to a careful evaluation of GM plants before being put to wide use. As a result, the US published

a framework in which contain regulatory approach, relevant laws, regulations and definitions of

GMOs, for reviewing GM foods and crops (United States General Accounting Office 2002).

2.3 REDUCTION IN SKILL AND VARIETY

Another criticism that is more related to Nigeria is the argument that the introduction of GM

foods into developing countries/economies deskills the farmers, citing that the “combination of

GM and local economics” resulted in “the degradation of farmers’ ability to perform”

(Engineering & Technology 2010). They also claim that GM leads to reduced variety,

especially for many tropical farmers who usually practice mixed farming (i.e. the cultivation of

different varieties and species of crops, as well as different crops in the field at the same time),

because “farmers moved from growing their traditional variety to just one or two genetically

homogenous ones”. This led to huge loss of crops during the ‘green revolution’ because the

GM resistance against diseases and pests broke down in 3 to 5 years (Engineering &

Technology 2010).

4

Furthermore, critics say that this is salutary lesson that the usage of ‘reductionist science’

which tends to isolate “problems and scale issues” can backfire even in comparatively simple

ecosystems. However, many groups like the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

(IITA) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) deviated

from applying single techniques to discover ways to induce farmers to implement only the

techniques that work on their particular fields, in order to reduce the risk of over dependence on

one single GM technique. The aim of this is to yield crops with the right traits that can be

hybridized with appropriate local species (Engineering & Technology 2010). This is a form of

differentiation of techniques according to fields.

Christian Fatokun, a geneticist at the Nigerian-based International Institute of Tropical

Agriculture (IITA) was quoted as saying that some of the GM crops currently in circulation

may not be attractive to Africa. He cited an example with the Roundup Ready Soybean, saying

that farmers in Africa grow soybean with other crops in the field “so if you spray Roundup, you

are going to kill other crops – only soybean will remain. Nobody wants that kind of

technology”. He however acknowledged that some GM crops and foods are potentially

beneficial to African farmers, consumers and communities at large (Engineering & Technology

2010).

3. CASSAVA & CASSAVA MARKET IN NIGERIA

To do justice to the above subheading, it is important to highlight current and potential size of

cassava market in Nigeria. ‘Cassava’ includes other cassava-based products. It is also necessary to

review the economic, social and physical investments required to foster an efficient cassava

industry in Nigeria, in terms of GM cassava.

Cassava in Africa is increasingly becoming a cash crop for urban consumption, instead of a

‘famine-reserve’ product and rural food staple. Africa currently produces more than 50% of the

world’s cassava supply. Cassava byproducts include cassava flour, starch, livestock feed and

biofuel. Nigeria is notably the world’s largest cassava producer, producing about 45 million tons

(approximately 19% of the world’s production) in 2009. However, much of this is consumed

domestically, therefore Nigeria makes little or no impact on global cassava market. There are

current initiatives by the government, policy makers, international investors and bodies to exploit

the immense cassava production capacity/potential of Nigeria (Agro2 2011).

5

The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in conjunction with Nigeria Cassava

Growers Association is currently aiding cassava growers to enhance their crops with the financial

support from the US Aid for International Development fund (USAID).

Because of enormous local demand for cassava and the huge domestic market, most of the

cassavas grown domestically are used in traditional food-oriented market, leaving very little to be

processed for industrial applications and export. For this reason, cassava products are imported for

use in the industry.

3.1 FLOUR

The domestic demand for cassava flour is currently estimated at 300,000 tons per year, this is

more than four times the total domestic production of cassava (Thai Farm International 2010).

This means that the current domestic production of cassava is not enough to meet the enormous

domestic demand for the product. For this reason, all the large local flourmills are constantly in

need of cassava flour and to avoid shortage, they take steps to boost supply, by getting

financially involved in projects aimed at boosting cassava production and flour processing.

This has yielded limited result so far.

CROP PRODUCTION BY STATES

Figure 1 Crop Production by State 2002

(Phillips et al 2004:18)

6

The above Figure shows that there is a higher concentration of crop production in the South and

Southeastern part of Nigeria. In the north, the production of groundnut and cocoa is

predominant.

3.2 STARCH

The estimated annual demand for starch is 130,000 tons. Currently Nigeria does not produce

enough starch domestically to meet this demand; therefore, more than 80% of the starch

requirement is imported from abroad (Thai Farm International 2010).

3.3 DOMESTIC SUPPLY

There are 49 registered cassava flour producers in Nigeria, according to research and statistics.

48 of them have a capacity below 5mt/day; only one of them has a capacity of 20mt/day. This

indicates that the cassava market is hugely under-supplied in terms of flour. The

implementation of GM cassava production will go a long way to meeting the domestic demand

for cassava, with a huge potential for exports as well. There are only 2 starch companies, and

they both have sporadic production as at 2010 (Thai Farm International 2010).

CASSAVA ROOT PRICES ACCORDING TO STATES

Figure 2 Cassava Tuber Prices by State (N/ton)

(Phillips et al 2004:18)

7

It can be seen from Figure 2 that as you move further north the prices of cassava Tuber increases,

this could be attributed to low local production of cassava up north.

4. PEST ANALYSIS OF NIGERIA BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

4.1 POLITICAL/LEGAL

The regulation of businesses, consumption and general business practices are hugely influence

by the political situation of the country. According to Political Risk Services, Nigeria is

currently ranked 91 out of 100 countries in the Global PRS Risk index. Nigeria has a score of

57, which is also below the sub-regional average of 66 (Political Risk Services 2010).

However, this is mainly due to the unrest in the Niger-Delta and religious riots in the Northern

regions of Nigeria and does not represent the overall political position of the country. Most of

the political unrests are isolated and peculiar to particular regions of the country. The overall

political situation of Nigeria is stable, especially after the successful conduct of the Presidential

elections, and this is expected to boost the economy, in terms of Foreign Investments, because

it signifies that the environment is even more conducive for doing business after a successful

democratic election.

It is also important to note that Federal Government of Nigeria approved the field-testing of

GM cassava by Donald Danforth Plant Science Centre, a US-based firm. This is considered

another milestone in not only the cassava sector, but also the agricultural industry with regards

to Genetic Modification. The first was the signing of the Cartagena protocol on Biosafety

(CPB) by Nigeria, and the creation of National Biosafety Committee (NBC) and National

Coordinating Committee (NCC), by the Federal Government, to provide a means of proper

decision-making regarding applications for methodical release of Living Modified Organisms

(LMOs) and GMOs. NBC and NCC were charged with the mandate of developing Nigeria’s

national biosafety framework (Ohadoma 2002).

Because of the nature of GM cassava, political/legal framework is vital for its existence,

survival and effectiveness. According to UN requirement, a country must have a functional

biosafety law before farmers can grow GM crops commercially. The Nigerian biosafety draft is

currently in the national assembly, and the lower house (House of Representatives) has passed

the draft. The upper (Senate) is expected to pass the draft before the end of May 2011 before

the president can sign it into law.

8

The Nigerian government also carried out various trade reforms to benefit the agricultural

industry, in a deliberate attempt to diversify the economy and lessen Nigeria’s over-dependence

on oil revenue. The government provides different incentive scheme, the industrial

development/income tax relief Act N0. 22of 1971, amended in 1988 provides incentives to

pioneer industries that are considered advantageous to the economic development of Nigeria

and to labor-intensive industries. The federal government set a major cassava procession and

exportation target for 2015, set up various credit and capital facilities to aid local farmers,

promulgated laws to protect domestic investors and producers from international competition,

and encourages foreign investment in agricultural, mining and export sector. However, “in

practice incentives meet with varying degrees of success”. Government of Nigeria reduced the

tax on domestic production, and raised the tariff on some imported agro-food products, and also

placed a 10-15 years ban on some other agro-food products in order to encourage domestic

production (Political Risk Services 2010).

This indicates that the government is steadily making the political/legal environment conducive

for the production of GM cassava. However, many NGOs have vehemently opposed the stance

of the Federal government on GM foods, citing health hazard, systematic colonization/food

dependence, and food fraud among other things as reasons for the Nigerian government to

discontinue any intensive plans for GM foods.

4.2 ECONOMIC

According to political risk services, the economic outlook of Nigeria is favorable though there

are risks as well. It cited that the improved security conditions in the restive Niger-Delta region,

a good harvest, and the decent performance of the non-oil sector like the agricultural sector,

triggered an economic recovery from the second half of 2009 to 2010. Real GDP growth rate is

well above 7%. However, most of this growth is oil-induced, and most opponents would argue

that it is nor real growth. This is why the situation in the Niger-Delta significantly affects the

Nigerian economy. This is reflected in the decrease in both Per capita GDP and Nominal GDP.

These are the risks highlighted earlier (Political Risk Services 2010).

Notably, strong agricultural productivity helped to ease pressure on the price of food, but

according to forecast, the inflation rate will remain double digit, mainly due to the structural

imbalance as a result of the single-commodity economy, as well as the resultant effect of public

spending on aggregate demand. 9

The inflation rate is 11.1%, showing a decrease from 12.3% in 2009. The unemployment rate

also registered a decrease in 5years to 14.3% (Political Risk Services 2010).

Infrastructure development projects generated a decent increase in consumption and higher

demand, which in turn boosted the imports bill; however, exports are growing at a faster rate.

This is a testimony of the favorable price and productivity recorded in the oil sector. Also the

current account surplus is forecast to grow to $29.5 billion (approximately 13.5% of GDP) in

2010 (Political Risk Services 2010). In regional comparison, Nigeria has the second highest

GDP growth rate and the highest regional current account/GDP.

Nigeria’s legal, accounting and regulatory system is in line with international standard,

however, enforcement in imbalanced. Public comment and input concerning proposed

regulations are entertained from time to time. Nigeria’s tax laws do not hinder investments,

however it is arguable that tax administration and imposition is irregular and transparency

deficient (Political Risk Services 2010).

4.3 SOCIAL

According to Political Risk Services (2010), as at 2009 major social indicators in Nigeria are as

follow:

Primary EnergyEnergy Consumption (1015 Btu): 1.04Per Capita Consumption (109 Btu): 0.01

PopulationAnnual Growth: 2.3%Infant Deaths per 1,000: 96Persons Under Age: 15 42%Urban Population: 46%Urban Growth: -1.9%Literacy: 72%

Work Force DistributionAgriculture: 70%Industry-Commerce: 10%Services: 20%Unions: 12%

Ethnic GroupsHausa and Fulani (29%), Yoruba (21%), Ibo (18%), Ijaw (10%), other (22%)

10

LanguagesEnglish, Hausa, Yoruba, Ibo, Fulani

ReligionsMuslim (50%), Christian (40%), indigenous beliefs (10%)

The agricultural industry alone employs up to 70% of the Nigerian labor force, this means that

with a little more training, there is ready labor for mass GM cassava production. Labor is very

cheap in Nigeria, cheaper than most emerging Europe, and this is an added incentive for

companies hoping to venture into GM cassava production. The population growth rate indicates

that the population increases by approximately 3.45 million people annually. This translates to

extra mouths to feed and more market for cassava and cassava products in Nigeria. Amid

growing insinuation that Islamic laws prohibit GM foods, Muslim groups have voiced that this

is not so.

4.4 TECHNOLOGY

The establishment of the National Office of Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP)

by the National Office of Industrial Property Act of 1979, to enhance the acquisition,

development, and promotion of foreign and indigenous technologies. NOTAP is responsible for

registering and evaluating foreign investors as regards technology usage (Political Risk

Services 2010). However, the infrastructure in Nigeria is currently poor, ranging from utilities

to roads, rails and air transportation. The federal government is committed to infrastructural

development and investing immensely into it, especially to boost diversification of the

economy and encourage foreign Direct Investment.

Moreover, Nigeria is one of the leading African countries in the development of

biotechnological techniques, especially in breeding of plants. Therefore, Nigeria is well

equipped for GM cassava production. The International Institute of tropical Agriculture (IITA)

has the expertize and facilities for mass GM trial and is working alongside the National Root

Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) and the Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) on federal

government approved field trials of GM cassava and cowpea. This indicates that Nigeria has

successfully made initial steps in terms of technology to adopt GM crops (Adenle 2011).

11

5. SWOT ANALYSIS OF GM CASSAVA cum AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

IN NIGERIA

5.1 STRENGHTS

Increased harvest and reduces the need for pesticides and herbicides. This increased

efficiency will minimize cost for Nigerian farmers, and prices of foods for Nigerian

consumers (Chen 2008).

Already being accepted by the Nigerian consumer most of who are price sensitive,

because of the benefits and land use efficiency it provides, and because of its wide

range of beneficiaries ranging from large producers, average farmers, processors,

traders, transporters and consumers.

It pro-poor, cost effective, and provides environmentally friendly techniques.

The capacity to generate employment, power (power sharing) and portable water,

especially for local communities

Has the capacity to attract FDI into the larger agriculture and other industries in Nigeria,

because its land use efficiency provides land for housing, industry and nature reserves.

Use of top notch imported technology.

Has the highest energy efficiency and lowest greenhouse gas emission (Mondelaers et

al 2009:1107).

5.2 WEAKNESSES

Majority of the available labor are unskilled, therefore would require extra training to be

able to work with GM technology.

The health issues are still not clarified and this could affect its implementation and

success in Nigeria.

May be difficult to regulate for farmers in the irregular Nigerian system, and may be

abused in terms of strict requirements.

12

5.3 OPPORTUNITIES

The mass production GM cassava is of interest to the Nigerian government, indicative

by the favorable laws and regulations, financial, institutional and technological backing

by the federal government.

Potential regional and global dominance in the cassava industry.

Potential foreign exchange savings on import substitution

Potential collaboration and exchange of technology with emerging Asia.

5.4 THREATS

Growing disapproval by NGOs, environmentalists and other interest groups in Nigeria.

Slow Progress and bureaucratic delay in passing the biosafety law, which is compulsory

before GM production techniques can be used commercially in Nigeria.

Inadequate infrastructure, which affects cultivation, harvest, storage, and supply chain

logistics. Unavailability of storage facilities is becoming a growing concern among

stakeholders.

Lack of sustainability and consistency in the Nigerian system/agricultural industry, may

work today and fail tomorrow.

6. CONCLUSION

Facts

Most consumers are influenced by cost rather than marketing.

The average Nigerian consumer is price sensitive irrespective of social class or economic

standing.

Genetically Modified food offer cheaper and more nutritious alternative to food

consumption.

Cassava is one of the chief food commodity in Nigeria, hence the huge domestic demand

for cassava and its byproducts.

As the world turn, at the turn of the 21st century a lot of scholars have argued about ways to

curb world hunger, especially in a developing country like Nigeria.

I used ‘curb’ because using any word to insinuate elimination would sound unrealistic. It is

worthy of note that hunger is the number one economic issue in the world today. Many

13

brilliant economists have devised ways of surviving recessions or beating inflation, but

hunger still remains unsolved. The number or hungry people in the world rose to 1.02

billion this year, and Nigeria has a fair share of that number.

With the total population of about 150 million, 52% of that number lives below the poverty

line. Over 53 million people are hungry in Nigeria; this represents about 30% of the total

population. Genetically Modified crops present a way out for Nigeria if well implemented

and managed for a change. It not only has the huge potential to solve the hunger problem

in Nigeria, it will also generate employment, livelihood for many families as well as

revitalize the economy and curtail over-dependence on oil, which has eaten deep into the

Nigerian economy over the years. Nigeria spends over $3 billion annually on food imports;

the price of food keeps rising because of the loss of food sovereignty (Ajayeoba 2010).

Food security is also an issue in Nigeria as various types of food fraud are perpetrated on

the Nigerian consumers.

The estimated annual revenue for a pioneering firm in GM production in Nigeria is

approximately $60 billion in the first 10 years. This will include processing and regional

exports flour and starch. In economics and in the business world, a venture is considered

feasible if the benefits outweigh the cost. Having highlighted the shortcoming of Nigeria as

the ‘cost’, with a total evaluation of the Business environment, Industry and product; the

benefits and potential of GM cassava is still glairing. This subject requires further research,

but even so, I am leaning towards GM cassava production as the possible answer to

Nigeria’s hunger, poverty and unemployment.

REFERENCES

14

Adenle, A. A. (2011) ‘Nigeria must press ahead with GM crops’. Science and Development

Network [online] 27 April. Available from <http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/nigeria-must-

press-ahead-with-gm-crops-1.html> [12 May 2011]

Agro2 (2011) All about Cassava [online] available from <

http://www.agro2.com/cassava-blog/cassava-–-a-multi-purpose-plant/> [12 May 2011]

Ajayeoba, A. (2010) ‘Concerning Food Security in Nigeria.’ West Africa Insight [online]

December, 1-3. Available from < http://westafricainsight.org/articles/PDF/81> [12,May 2011]

Chen, M. (2008) ‘An Integrated Research framework to understand consumer attitude and

purchase intentions towards genetically modified food.’ British Food Journal 110, (6) 559-579

Engineering & Technology (2010) ‘Gene Genies.’ Engineering GM [online] 20 February – 5

March 2010, 24-26. Available from < www.theiet.org/magazin> [11 May 2011]

globalEDGE (2010) Agriculture [online] available from

<http://globaledge.msu.edu/industries/agriculture/memo/ > [6 May 2011]

Kumar, G. B. S., Ganapathi, T. R., Revathi, C. J., Srinivas, L. and Bapat, V. A. (2005)

‘Expression of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen in Transgenic banana plant.’ Plata [online] 222, 484-

493. Available from < http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?

code=j28573pu42212114&size=largest> [12 May 2011]

Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J. and Huylenbroeck, G. V. (2009) ‘A meta-analysis of the differences

in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming.’ British Food Journal 111,

(10) 1098-1119

Motherland Nigeria (2002) Agriculture [online] available from

<http://www.motherlandnigeria.com/agriculture.html#food> [6 May 2011]

Ohadoma, C. (2002) ‘Developing National Biosafety Framework’. This Day Nigeria [online] 12

December. Available from < http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Dec/msg00074.html> [12 May 2011]

15

Phillips, T. P., Taylor, D. S., Sanni, L. and Akoroda, M. O. (2004) ‘A Cassava Industrial

revolution in Nigeria: The Potential for a New Industrial Crop.’ International Fund For

Agricultural Development: Food and Agricultural Organization of The United Nation, [online,] 1-

49. Available from < ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5548e/y5548e00.pdf> [12 May 2011]

Political Risk Services (2010) Nigeria Country Report. East Syracuse, NY: The PRS Group Inc.

Raney, T. (2006) ‘Economic impact of transgenetic crops in developing countries.’ Current

Opinion in Biotechnology [online] 17, 1-5. Available from

<http://www.agbioworld.org/pdf/raney.pdf> [11 May 2011]

Thai Farm International (2010) Market for Cassava Products in Nigeria [online] available from <

http://www.tfinigeria.com/market.aspx> [12 May 2011]

The National Academies Press (2011) Impact of genetically Engineered Crops on Farm

Sustainability in the United States [online] available from <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?

record_id=12804> [7 May 2011]

United States General Accounting Office (2002) ‘Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View

Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate, but FDA’s Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced.’ Report

to Congressional Requesters [online] 02, (566) 1-52. Available from <

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02566.pdf> [12 May 2011]

16