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 participants demographics but also to their Agroecological 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.

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 2

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.

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 countrys 8 provinces using a combination of both probability and non probability sampling techniques. Data collection was done using self-administered questionnaires with questions on individuals 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 4

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 countrys 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 worlds 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 Kenyans perception towards them for further research.

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 Male (%) Positive Negative Neutral Total 68 17 15 100 Gender Female (%) 47 29 25 100 Average 407(58%) 162(23%) 131(19%) 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

of Crops and Foods using Chi-square statistic was done. To prevent type 1 error Yatess 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. Kendals 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, Kendals 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 Kendals 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 individuals 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.

Table 2: Age and Perception towards GMCs and Foods Perception 18-26 Positive Negative Neutral Total 65 18 17 100 Age in Years (%) 27-55 57 24 19 100 56 51 27 22 100 Average 407(58%) 162(23%) 131(19%) 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, Kruskals 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

against this background that the present study hypothesized that public perception towards GMCs and foods may be influenced by an individuals level of education. Table 3 aptly summarizes the study results. Table 3: Education Level and Perception towards GMCs and Foods Perception Primary Positive Negative Neutral Total 33 39 28 100 Level of Education (%) Secondary 57 28 15 100 Tertiary 83 4 13 100 Average 407(58%) 162(23%) 131(19%) 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, Cramers V statistic was performed. Cramers V is a measure of association with values ranging from 0, for no association, to 1, for perfect positive association. The calculated value of Cramers V was 0.73, which is close

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 individuals 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 Frequency HZ (High potential) MZ (Medium Potential) LZ (Low Potential) 46 67 86 % 39 57 74 Negative Frequency 37 33 13 % 32 28 11 Neutral Frequency 34 17 18 % 29 15 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

10

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, Kendalls 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 farmers 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 Hobans (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, Kruskals Gamma statistic (- 0.210) showed that an 11

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 Cramers 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 respondents 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 Moons (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 individuals 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). 12

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 Kendalls 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 individuals 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 13

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 Agroecological 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 14

countrywide, particularly: students and staff of Kenyatta University, Egerton University and St. Pauls 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 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 15 Products.

(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.

16