Ghanaians should not have to choose between scientific progress and the right to know what is on their plates.
The debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has often been reduced to two opposing camps: those who see biotechnology as a solution to agricultural challenges and those who fear its implications for health, the environment and Ghana’s food sovereignty. But the country needs a more useful conversation, one grounded in evidence, transparency and the interests of ordinary consumers.
Ghana has already entered this debate in practical terms. The National Biosafety Authority (NBA) approved pod-borer-resistant cowpea for environmental release and commercial cultivation in 2022. Separately, 14 genetically modified crop events were registered for possible importation for food, feed, or processing, not for cultivation. These distinctions matter, because public understanding cannot grow where different approvals are treated as though they mean the same thing.
The potential benefits deserve serious consideration. Crops engineered to resist certain pests could help farmers reduce pesticide applications and protect yields. At a time of climate pressure and high food prices, Ghana should not dismiss scientific innovation simply because it is unfamiliar or controversial.
However, the promise of innovation cannot excuse weak public engagement. During a recent visit to the NBA, the Environment, Science and Technology Minister, Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings, urged greater transparency in Genetically Modified Adoption (GMO) adoption, clear labelling, sustained public education and non-GMO certification that covers the domestic market, not only exports. Her warning was blunt: secrecy breeds mistrust.
She is right, and her call raises the central question. Can Ghana embrace genetically modified crops without compromising transparency, public trust and farmers’ ability to choose what they grow?
Are GMOs Safe?
On safety, genetically modified foods that have undergone rigorous assessment and received the necessary approvals are generally considered safe to eat, but Ghanaians must also be able to verify what they are buying.
The relevant authorities must ensure that approved GMO products comply with Ghana’s labelling requirements, while consumers should check product labels for information on genetically modified ingredients and seek clarification from the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) or the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) when in doubt. Public trust cannot rest on assurances alone; it requires clear labels, accessible information and effective regulatory oversight.
The science and the system are different questions
Ghana’s debate keeps mixing up two questions.
The first is whether approved GM crops are safe to eat. Major scientific bodies, including the World Health Organization and national academies of science, have found that GM foods approved after case-by-case assessment are no more dangerous than their conventional counterparts. That does not make every genetically modified product safe by default. It does mean that claims of genetically modified food in itself causing cancer or sickness are not supported by the evidence for approved crops.
The second is whether Ghana’s system for approving, monitoring and explaining GMOs deserves trust. Here the science settles nothing. Safety testing tells you whether a product is fit to eat. It does not tell you who controls the seed, what farmers pay for it, what happens to local varieties, or whether the person buying a bag of flour knows what is in it. The fear of the product is largely unfounded for approved crops. The fear of the process is not.
What the court already ordered
In May 2024, an Accra High Court dismissed an injunction by Food Sovereignty Ghana, the Vegetarians’ Association and a coalition of civil societies, who were challenging the commercialisation of Genetically Modified cowpea and rice. The same court ordered the National biosafety authority (NBA) to label all GMOs on the market, publish data on them and run public sensitisation. The NBA’s chief executive said then that no GMOs were on the market. If so, labelling should be easy. If not, the public has a right to know.
Two years on, a minister is still asking for much the same things. Citizens are entitled to ask how much of the order has been carried out. The Food and Drugs Authority has issued labelling guidelines for Genetically Modified food and feed, with non-compliance an offence under the Public Health Act. However, guidelines on paper are not labels on shelves.
The questions fear is hiding.
Fear of genetically modified (GMOs) is often lazy, but the questions underneath it are not.
Seed and money. Improved seed can raise yields. It can also bring licensing terms, higher prices, and pressure to buy each season again. A smallholder in the Northern Region needs clear answers on cost, replanting rights, and market access before she plants, not after.
Control. If a narrow group of suppliers holds the technology while public research is left behind, Ghana swaps one dependence for another. Cowpea is encouraging because it came out of a public institute. The test is whether that model survives once a crop becomes commercially attractive.
Environment. The minister asked the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) to consider designated cultivation zones to reduce the risk of GM crops mixing with indigenous varieties. West Africa is where cowpea was domesticated, and its diversity is a national asset.
Choice. If non-GMO certification covers only exports, foreign buyers get the label while Ghanaian consumers get a shrug. That is a two-tier food system, not a food policy.
The way forward
None of this is an argument against biotechnology. It is a demand for responsible governance:
- Enforced labelling, with public reporting on compliance, and non-GMO certification for Ghanaians as well as exporters.
- A public register of every approved GM product, its trait, developer and approved use, in plain language and local languages, so import-only approvals are never confused with cultivation approvals. The NBA and the FDA should also explain decisions on the platforms where Ghanaians actually get their information, not just in newspapers.
- Farmer protections: conventional seed kept available, seed terms and prices made clear, and public breeding backed so local research stays strong.
- Monitoring after approval, including gene flow and effects on local varieties, with results published.
- Engagement before decisions, involving farmers’ groups, scientists, consumer organisations, traditional leaders and the media, with independent oversight and disclosed conflicts of interest.
By Hannah Agyemang
About The Author
