PUBLIC PERCEPTION TOWARDS GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS AND FOODS IN KENYA Shauri, S. H. (PhD), Njoka F. M. (PhD) and Anunda H. N.

Contacts email: hshauri@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT The broad objective of the study was to assess public perception towards Genetically Modified (GM) Crops and Foods in Kenya. The specific objectives were to find out the influence of background factors and Agro-ecological zones on the public perception towards GMCs and Foods in the country. A survey was carried out in Kenya covering all the 8 provinces between November 2007 and June 2008, targeting adult civilian population (aged 18+ years). The researchers set out to attain a sample size of 700 subjects so as to achieve a sampling error rate of +3.7%. Accordingly, four clusters comprising of general consumers, farmers, academicians, and resource persons were selected for the study. Efforts were made to ensure that the sample drawn was representative of the Kenyan population through Simple Random Sampling, Systematic Sampling, Convenient and Snowball Sampling as was appropriate. Data was collected using self administered questionnaires. Specifically, the survey instrument was designed to gather information on the participants’ background, ecological zones and perception towards GMCs and foods. Overall, well over one half (58%) of the respondents had positive perceptions towards GMCs and foods. Further, results of the study indicated that positive perception towards GMCs and foods was significantly related not only to the participant’s demographics but also to their Agro-ecological zones. Findings of the study suggest the need for a well designed and effective program to create awareness and educate the public about various issues relating to GMCs and foods. Various stakeholder such as the government, scientists, Non Governmental Organizations and the private sector need to communicate proactively with the public, especially women, elderly people etc, with complete and accurate information about GMCs and Foods. Key words: Biotechnology, genetic engineering, genetically modified crops, Kenya, perceptions.

2

Public Perception towards Genetically Modified Crops and Foods in Kenya

1.1. Introduction

A large number of Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs) and Foods have been developed to

address hunger and malnutrition through out the world. These includes maize and cotton cultivars

modified with the Bacillus thuringiensis gene for insect resistance (FAO, 2008), herbicide tolerant

canola and soybean (FAO, 2008 and Rowe 2004), and “Golden rice” that has increased Vitamin A

content (Bonny, 2003 and Hoban 2002).

However, persistent controversy and claims that these products may be wanting and

harmful to human life and the environment have created considerable concerns. In this respect,

public perception towards Biotechnology/Genetic Engineering/Genetically Modified Organisms

(GMOs) has been thoroughly investigated in industrialized countries (Loureiro et al 2005, Fischhoff

et al 2001 and Eurobarometer 2002 and 2008). Apparently, not much is known about public

perception towards GM technology in developing countries.

Most people in developing countries are hardly informed about GMOs and probably more

concerned about risks in everyday life rather than potential long-term hazards of the new

Biotechnology. The few countries, in the developing world such as South Africa, that have chosen

to embrace the technology have welcomed the benefits it has offered. This research study was

aimed at extending the knowledge base that currently exists in the field of GM technology in

Kenya, which is still in its infancy stage. It was expected that the findings of this study would impact

positively on current debate and policy direction regarding the future development of transgenic

crops and foods in Kenya. This research also aimed at expanding the general knowledge of GM

crops and foods and their perception in Kenya. It was also anticipated that conclusions and

recommendations of this research would complement other works done on GMCs and foods.

Notably, however, a rich body of literature regarding consumer perception towards Genetic

3

Modification has emerged in recent years. The present study, therefore, contributes to the existing

framework of knowledge by extending the understanding of how risk/benefit perceptions differ

across Agro-ecological regions, age groups, level of education attained and gender. This

knowledge will aid government agencies in developing new or revising existing crop and food

policies as they make more informed and effective decisions on Genetic Engineering and

agriculture.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Problems of drought, famine and climate change are real and widespread in developing

countries begetting hunger and malnutrition. Indeed, millions of people are food insecure due to

famine, draught, pests and climate change. Accordingly, these myriad predicaments lead to poor

crop harvests placing the country and region in a situation of food insecurity. More precisely, most

people, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, depend on food aid to survive. More so, poverty levels

are endemic affecting majority of the population. This further compounds the food crisis situation in

the region.

Apparently, various strategies have been put in place to mitigate food insecurity, among

them GMCs and foods. The implementation of the latter strategy has been controversial in many

countries, with two camps, one supporting and the other opposing Genetic Engineering. Notably,

public perception of Biotechnology/Genetically Modified Organisms has been thoroughly studied in

industrialized countries. However, little is known about the public perception towards GMCs and

foods in developing countries such as Kenya. In addition, factors influencing public perception

towards GMCs and foods have remained equivocal. Time seemed appropriate for this study to

understand public perception towards GMCs and foods and the factors determining such

perceptions.

4

1.3. Objectives

The broad objective of the study was to assess public perception towards GMC and foods

in Kenya. The specific objectives were first, to find out the influence of background factors on the

perception of GMCs and foods in Kenya and two, was to establish the influence of Agro-ecological

zones on the perception towards GMCs and foods in Kenya.

1.4. Research Questions

This research was guided by three key research questions:

(a) What is the public perception towards GMCs and foods in Kenya

(b) Why is it that some people have a positive perception towards GMCs and foods while

others do not?

(c) How does Agro-ecological zone influence public perception towards GMCs and foods

in Kenya

1.5. Methodology

This study adopted a cross-sectional survey design to generate both qualitative and

quantitative data. Participants (n=700) were drawn from the country’s 8 provinces using a

combination of both probability and non probability sampling techniques. Data collection was done

using self-administered questionnaires with questions on individual’s background information,

participants’ awareness, knowledge and perceptions regarding Genetically Modified Crops and

Foods.

1.6. Inclusion Criteria

Adult Kenyans (aged ≥ 18 years); literate and aware of GMOs were sampled. For

convenience of analysis, the respondents were divided into 4 clusters. Cluster one, consisted of

consumers including participants from NGOs, religious organizations, businessmen, government

departments and agents. Cluster two, comprised of farmers sampled from the 3 Agro-ecological

5

zones namely High potential zone (including Central, parts of Eastern, Rift Valley, some parts of

Nyanza and Western Provinces); Medium potential zones (most of Eastern, Coast, Rift Valley

Provinces and North Nyanza); Low potential zone (Some parts of North Eastern, parts of Eastern

and Rift Valley Province). Cluster three, was constituted of representatives from the country’s

academia (University students, lecturers and other middle level scholars). Cluster four, was

comprised of resources persons/scientists from the academia, government and private research

institutions. It also included representatives from producer organizations knowledgeable in GM

work for scientific and technological input.

1.7. Significance of the Study

This study was significant in three respects. First, with thousands of the world’s poor dying from

starvation, many desperate voices are calling on richer countries to use genetic science to wage a

war on famine (FAO, 2004). Despite this enthusiasm, there are several factors which stand

between the acceptance and rejection of this new technology. Taking this into consideration, it

became necessary to ask Kenyans what they felt about the new technology in a bid to fill this gap

in knowledge. Second, this research was significant to the domain of GM crop debate and policy

makers as it was aimed at extending the knowledge base that currently exists in this field in the

country since GE technology is new to most Kenyans. The few countries in the developing world

that have chosen to embrace the technology have welcomed its benefits. It was expected that the

findings of this study would have the capacity to impact positively to policy makers in the country

for the future development of transgenic crops and foods. Finally, this research was also poised to

expand the general knowledge of GMCs and Kenyan’s perception towards them for further

research.

6

1.8. Study Findings

1.8.1: Gender and Perception towards GMCs and Foods

Consumers’ personal attributes may have significant influence on their views about various

Genetic Modification issues. Although there is broad support for plant Biotechnology for health

benefits, opinion differs on the issue of animal genetics for pure economic benefit (Hoban, 2002).

This study examined the influence of gender on perception towards GMCs and foods. Findings of

the study are contained in Table 1.

Table 1: Respondents Gender and Perception towards GM Crops and Foods

Perceptions Gender

Male (%) Female (%) Average

Positive 68 47 407(58%)

Negative 17 29 162(23%)

Neutral 15 25 131(19%)

Total 100 100 700(100%)

From Table 1, it is clear that well over one half (58%) of the total sample had a positive

perception towards Genetic Modification. More specifically, the favourable perception towards

GMCs and foods were reported by over three fifths (68%) of males and over two fifths (47%) of the

female participants. Table 1 also reveals that less than one fifth (17%) of the males and over two

fifths (29%) of the female participants respectively had negative perception towards GMCs and

foods. However, only an average of less than one fifth (19%) of the respondents were undecided,

of whom, 24% were females and 15% males.

A further analysis of gender perception (negative or positive) towards Genetic Engineering

7

of Crops and Foods using Chi-square statistic was done. To prevent type 1 error Yates’s correction

(-0.5) was applied; with (d.f. =1, X2 at 0.05 level of confidence =3.841, the calculated X2 =13.46).

This study concluded that there was a significant relationship (X2 = 13.46) between gender and

perception towards GMCs and foods. These results suggest that a significant divergence exists

between men and women regarding their opinions about GMCs and foods.

Kendal’s tau-c is an appropriate measure of association, for this test, based on the number

of concordant and discordant pairs, and with correction for ties, Kendal’s tau-c also was used to

indicate the direction of the relationship, as it assumes values between -1 and +1, and a value of 0

denotes a complete absence of an association, while -1 denotes a perfect decreasing relationship

and +1 a perfect increasing relationship. In this test, the value of Kendal’s tau-c was found to be

0.207 implying a weak positive association between gender and perception towards GMCs and

foods.

1.8.2: Age and Perception towards GMCs and Foods

The study also examined how age of the respondents affected perception towards GE of

Crops and Foods. Public perceptions of GE have multiple dimensions and are likely to be

influenced by multiple forces, preferences and events (Barker, 2001). Similarly, an individual’s age

is likely to affect their perception towards GE and hence acceptance or rejection of GM food

products (Kim, 2001). Table 2 shows that young respondents (18-26 years) had a positive

perception (65%), towards GMCs and foods, compared to those in the age bracket of between

27-55 years (57%) and 51% for those aged 56 (+) years. The results indicate that the more

advanced in age an individual becomes the more negative their perception towards GMCs and

foods.

8

Table 2: Age and Perception towards GMCs and Foods

Perception Age in Years (%)

18-26 27-55 ≥ 56 Average

Positive 65 57 51 407(58%)

Negative 18 24 27 162(23%)

Neutral 17 19 22 131(19%)

Total 100 100 100 700(100%)

Further, Chi-square statistic was computed to test the relationship between the age of the

respondents and their perception towards GMCs and foods. The analysis yielded a Chi-square test

value (X2 = 14.36 at 2 d.f, level of confidence = 0.05, tabulated X2 = 3.842). This showed that a

significant relationship existed between age of respondents and their perception towards GMCs

and foods.

To test the strength of the association between age and perception towards GMCs and

foods, Kruskal’s Gamma statistic was done. This test was used because it is suitable to

computations of the same coefficient value regardless of which is the independent variable and its

values differ from -1 to +1 (the variables computed Gamma value was = _ 0.210). This signifies a

weak negative association between age and perception towards GMCs and foods.

1.8.3: Education Level and Perception towards GMCs and Foods

Both opponents and proponents of Genetic Engineering (GE) argue that their goal is to

educate the public so that they can make informed decision with regard to GMCs and foods. While

opponents focus on educating people about the risks of GE, proponents focus on their benefits.

Yet, if we consider education as an objective, neither group has been decidedly successful. It is

9

against this background that the present study hypothesized that public perception towards GMCs

and foods may be influenced by an individual’s level of education. Table 3 aptly summarizes the

study results.

Table 3: Education Level and Perception towards GMCs and Foods

Perception Level of Education (%)

Primary Secondary Tertiary Average

Positive 33 57 83 407(58%)

Negative 39 28 4 162(23%)

Neutral 28 15 13 131(19%)

Total 100 100 100 700(100%)

It is clearly shown in Table 3 that well over four fifths (83%) of the respondents who had

tertiary level of education had positive perception towards GE of Crops and Foods, followed by

those with secondary (57%) and primary (33%) levels of education. However, it is also evident in

Table 3 that there were more (39%) participants with negative perception towards GMCs and foods

among those with primary level of education compared to 28% and 4% for secondary and tertiary

levels respectively. Overall, over one half (58%) of the respondents had favourable perception

towards GMCs and foods.

Further, the Chi-square test at 2 d.f. and 0.05 level of confidence, yielded a test value of X2

= 42, indicating a very significant relationship between level of education and perception towards

GMCs and foods. To determine the strength of the association, Cramer’s V statistic was

performed. Cramer’s V is a measure of association with values ranging from 0, for no association,

to 1, for perfect positive association. The calculated value of Cramer’s V was 0.73, which is close

10

to 1. This finding indicates a very strong relationship between the level of education of the

respondent and perception towards GE of Crops and foods.

1.8.4: Agro-ecological Zones and Perception towards GMCs and Foods

It was assumed in this study that public perceptual differences on GMCs and foods may

depend significantly on an individual’s geographical area of residence. Compared with their more

urban compatriots, members of the public in less developed areas may have more optimistic

attitudes, perceive more benefits and are more risk tolerant in relation to GM foods and agricultural

Biotechnology. This study collected data on farmers’ perception towards GMCs and foods from 3

Agro-ecological zones in the country namely high potential, medium potential and low potential

zones, herein labeled as HZ, MZ and LZ respectively. Analysis of the responses from the three

Agro-ecological regions is shown in Table 4

Table 4: Agro-ecological Zones and Perception towards GMCs and Foods

Agro-ecological Zones Positive Negative Neutral

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

HZ (High potential) 46 39 37 32 34 29

MZ (Medium Potential) 67 57 33 28 17 15

LZ (Low Potential) 86 74 13 11 18 16

Results in Table 4 indicate that farmers in high potential zone (areas with high rainfall

and fertile soils) had negative perception towards GMCs and foods than those from medium

potential and low potential zone (arid/semi arid areas with poor rainfall and soils). This may be

explained by the fact that farmers in high potential regions usually have enough food because they

receive reliable rainfall, rarely experience famine and hence are less likely to see the need for

11

GMCs and foods compared to farmers in arid and semi arid zone, who usually depend on food aid

due to massive crop failure and rampant food insecurity.

The relationship between Agro-ecological zone and perception towards GMCs and foods

was found to be statistically significant (6.98) using Chi-square statistic at 2 d.f, and 0.05 level of

confidence over the tabulated value of X2 of 5.991. This means that the perception of farmers

towards GMCs and foods is not independent of their Agro-ecological zones.

Further, to determine the strength of the association between Agro-ecological zone and

the perception of farmers’ towards GMCs and foods, Kendall’s tau – C was performed (Tau– C =

(P + Q)* 2M/N2 (M-1). The calculated tau C was = 0.67, clearly indicating a strong association

between a farmer’s Agro-ecological zone and their perception towards GMCs and foods.

1.9. Discussion of the Study Findings

This section presents a discussion of four major findings of the study. First, it was found

out that there was a significant relationship (X2 = 13.46) between gender and perception towards

GMCs and foods. The results suggested a significant divergence in perception towards GMCs and

foods between males and females. These findings were attributed to differential access to science

information and knowledge between males and females characteristic of developing countries such

as Kenya. Apparently, these findings were not surprising as they corroborated those of Hoban’s

(2004) and IFIC (2002) studies which showed that men have positive attitudes towards science

and technology than women. Further, it is evident from other studies that females, particularly from

developing countries, are generally less interested, less knowledgeable and less supportive of

science and technology than their male counterparts (Hossain et al, 2002 and

www.agbioworld.org.2002).

Second, Chi-square statistic (X2=14.36) showed that age was significantly related to

perception towards GMCs and foods. Further, Kruskal’s Gamma statistic (- 0.210) showed that an

12

increase in age leads to negative perception towards GMCs and foods. The explanation here was

that the youth are more positive to science and new technologies, including GE, than the elderly.

Additionally, perceived levels of risk by the younger respondents may be lower due to their trust in

government institutions, positive perceptions of science and positive media influence. This is

contrary to the lower benefits and higher perceived risks among the elderly population and hence

the rationale for low or non-acceptance of GMCs and foods by this category of people.

Third, it is clear from the findings of the study that over one half (58%) of the

respondents had a positive perception towards GMCs and foods. Indeed, the Chi-square value

(X2=42) suggested a very significant association between level of education and perception

towards GMCs and foods. More so, the calculated value of Cramer’s V (0.73) signified a very

strong relationship between level of education and perception towards GMCs and foods. Thus, the

study findings suggested that more educated individuals had a positive perception towards GMCs

and foods.

The differential acceptance of GE crops and foods based on respondent’s level of

education can be attributed to the different ways in which those with high and low levels of

education access and process information regarding GMCs and foods. Imperatively, educated

individuals are more likely to easily access and carefully weigh potential risks and benefits of

GMCs and foods compared to the less educated. The latter may be basing their GE perceptions on

“sound bites” they hear on Television, at work or through opinion formers/endorsers in the society,

corroborating Wohl, 1998 findings. Similarly, these findings are very consistent with those of

Moon’s (2001); who found out that public acceptance of GE products was significantly related not

only to their perception of risks and benefits, but also to the level of an individual’s education or

knowledge. The implication here is that level of education is associated with perception towards

GMCs and foods or to science and technology (www.gmwatch.org, 2008).

13

Finally, Chi-square test (6.98) revealed a very significant relationship between agro-ecological

zone and perception towards GMCs and foods. The association between the two variables was

also found to be very strong with a Kendall’s tau C of 0.67. The positive perception towards GMCs

and foods by farmers from low and medium potential regions could have stemmed from more

urgent need for adequate and nutritious diet. More so, people in these areas are food insecure and

any attempt to improve their food security situation is likely to be accepted compared to people in

high Agro-ecological zones where most people are food secure.

1.9. Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

Five key findings regarding public perception towards GMCs and foods are reported in this

paper. First, that an individual’s gender is significantly related to perception towards GMCs and

foods. The implication here is that men have a positive perception towards GMCs and foods than

their female counterparts. It is within the confines of this finding that we recommend that public

awareness and education on GMCs and foods by the various stakeholders such as the

government, research institutions, NGOs and the private sector should target females more than

men. In this regard, the language used and the packaging of information should be done in such

away to be sensitive and appealing to women, who are the prime target.

Second, it was evident in this study that age and perception towards GMCs and foods

were statistically related. Younger people were more receptive to GMCs and foods than the elderly.

The implication here was that there exist hope in the adoption of GMCs and foods in Kenya given

that most young people, who constitute the majority of the Kenyan population, had a positive

perception towards GMCs and foods. Accordingly, it is recommended that awareness and

education should focus more on the elderly population than the youth to support GMCs and foods

as a strategy to enhance food security in the country.

Third, findings of the study revealed that level of education was significantly related to

14

perception towards GMCs and foods. That is the higher the level of education the more positive the

perception towards GMCs and foods. This suggests that those with low levels of education are the

opponents of the introduction of GMCs and foods in the country. In this regard, it is recommended

that more awareness and information be availed to those with low levels of education. This will

enhance their knowledge on the benefits and risks of GMCs and foods engendering them firmly in

the realm of those who are making informed decisions in support of GMCs and foods in the country

and elsewhere.

Fourth, Agro-ecological zones and perception towards GMCs and foods were found to be

significantly associated. The findings indicated that those from low and medium Agro-ecological

zones had favourable perception towards GMCs and foods than their counterparts from high Agro-

ecological regions of the country. It was therefore recommended that GMCs and foods introduction

in the country should be started in the low and medium Agro-ecological zones of the country. The

low and medium Agro-ecological zones should be the priority areas because the farmers are

positive about GMCs and foods. In fact, this is a perfect example of the “last first” in the

introduction of GE technology that has not been achieved in many rural development initiatives. If

this is implemented, it is envisioned that GMCs and foods will be accepted and more critical is that

this will enhance food security in these areas and the country in general.

Finally, there is need for more research on public perception towards GE and health,

environment, social and ethical considerations. Such research will ensure that more information is

available regarding the way the Kenyan public perceives the contribution of GE to the various

sectors of the economy. Knowledge of public perception towards GE is therefore likely to enhance

the way the public will embrace GE for socio-economic development.

1.9. Acknowledgement

The authors of this paper acknowledge the support of all the sponsors and respondents

15

countrywide, particularly: students and staff of Kenyatta University, Egerton University and St.

Paul’s College; personnel/staff from Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

(KARI), resource persons/scientists, businessmen, consumers and farmers who provided

information upon which this research and paper are based.

2.1. References

Baker, G. A. and Burnham, T. A. (2001): “Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Foods:

Market Segment Analysis and Implications for Producers and Policy Makers.” Journal of

Agricultural and Resource Economics. 26 (2): 387-403

Bonny, S. (2003): “Why are most Europeans Opposed to GMOs? Factors Explaining Rejection in

France and Europe.” Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. 6. 20-41

Eurobarometer (2002): Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002.Eurobarometer. 58.23

France. Available online, cited 4/5/2008. www.abeurope.infor.

FAO (2008): Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the needs of the poor. The State of Food and

Agriculture 2003-2007.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome.

Fischhoff, B. and I. Fischhoff (2001): Publics’ Opinion about Biotechnologies. Agbio Forum, 4:

155-162.

Hoban, T.J. (2002): ‘Public Perceptions and Understanding of Agricultural Biotechnology.” Cereals

Foods World, 43 (1):20-22

Hossain, F. B. Onyango, A. Adelaja, B. Schilling, and W. Hallman (2002): “Consumer

Acceptance of Food Biotechnology: Willingness to Buy Genetically Modified Food Products.”

Food Policy Institute Working Paper WP-0602-001. 9-34

International Food Information Centre (IFIC) (2001, 2002): U.S Consumer Attitudes toward Food

Biotechnology; Available online, 45-53. Cited 5/5/2008. http://www.ific.org

Kim, G.M. (2001): From Protoplasm to Swarmer: Regeneration of Genes. Journal of Phycology; 38

16

(1). 34.

Loureiro, M.L. and M. Bugbee (2005): “Enhanced GM Foods: Are Consumers Ready To Pay for

the Potential Benefits of Biotechnology?” Journal of Consumer Affairs 39 (1):52-70

Moon, W. and S.K Balasubramanian (2004): “Public Attitude towards Agro-biotechnology: The

Modulating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness and Outrage.” Review of

Agricultural Economics, 26. (2): 186-208.

Rowe, G.H. (2004): How can genetically modified foods be made publicly acceptable? Trends in

Biotechnology, 22 (3): 107-109.

Wohl, J. B. (1998). Consumers’ decision - making and risk perceptions regarding foods produced

with biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21: 387-404.