Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholders’ Perceptions of GM Technology in West Africa: Assessing the Responses of Policymakers and Scientists in Ghana and Nigeria

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The perception of two key stakeholders such as policymakers and scientists on genetic modification (GM) technology was examined in Ghana and Nigeria using semi-structured interviews. A total sample of 20 policymakers (16 at ministries and 4 at parliament/cabinet) and 58 scientists (43 at research institutes and 15 at universities) participated at the interviews. This study revealed respondents perspectives on potential benefits and risks of GM technology, status and development of biosafety regulatory frameworks, role of science and technology innovation in agricultural development, intellectual property right and related issues. The study also shed some light on a possible influence of the European Union and United States in the development and potential adoption of GM technology. More importantly, the article suggests that most respondents including policymakers believe that GM technology has great potential to solve part of agricultural problems in both countries. But, lack of appropriate regulatory framework, lack of trained personnel, weak institutions and poor equipped laboratory among others represent a significant challenge in introducing GM technology in this part of Africa.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Agricultural biotechnology is a collection of scientific techniques that can be used to characterize and identify genes with the ability to make improvements (such as resistance to a disease and yield performance) in crops and livestocks. The followings are the terminologies used in agriculture biotechnology; (a) Traditional breeding (e.g., molecular markers, hybridization, micropropagation, marker-assisted selection etc) techniques are used for the exchange of unregulated chunk of genomes through crossing of plants and offspring selection over many generations to produce a desired trait, which could take several years; (b) Genetic engineering (GE) is a modern biotechnology technique used to move gene from one organism to another in order to achieve a desired trait within a short given period of time, this process is also called genetic modification (GM); (c) Plant tissue culture is a collection of techniques used for the reproduction of disease-free planting material for crops, for example, to grow or maintain plant cells or tissue under a sterile condition-it can be used in traditional plant breeding.

  2. Parliament is a legislature under a democratic government where law makers meet to facilitate decision-making.

  3. Cabinet is an executive branch of government made up of high-ranking government officials.

  4. Presidential Assent is a stage when the draft of legislative proposal known as bill is passed by house of Parliament receives signature or assent from the President of a country, then becomes an Act of Parliament.

  5. Precautionary principle states when an action (e.g. genetically modified organism) is suspected to pose a risk to health or environment, lack of full scientific investigation should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid such a risk (see CBD 2000).

  6. Focus group interview with the scientists, Biotechnology and Nuclear Agricultural Research Institute (BNARI), Accra, Ghana, 17 January 2011.

  7. Focus group interview with scientists, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Crops Research Centre, Kumasi, Ghana, 19 January 2011.

  8. Individual interview with policymaker, House of Representative, National Assembly, Abuja, Nigeria, 13 January 2011.

  9. Focus group interview with scientists (A), the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana, 19 January 2011.

  10. Individual interview with policymaker, Ministry of Environment Science and Technology (MEST), Accra, Ghana, 18 January 2011.

  11. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) occurs naturally in the soil. It produces a crystal protein that is toxic to specific group of pests. In the case of Bt cotton, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium (Bt), and the gene of interest produces a protein that kills cotton bollworm.

  12. Focus group interview with scientists (B), KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana, 19 January 2011.

  13. BioCassava plus project is made up of team of scientists from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin and North America that are engaged in innovative research to address malnutrition problem in developing countries by increasing the nutritional value of cassava (see, http://www.danforthcenter.org/science/programs/international_programs/bcp/).

  14. Individual interview with policymaker, Regional Agricultural Development Unit (RADU), Ministry of Agriculture, Ho, Ghana, 24 January 2011.

  15. Individual interview with policymaker, House of Representative- Chairman on Agriculture, National Assembly, Abuja, Nigeria, 14 January 2011.

  16. Individual interview with policymaker, CSIR, Headquarters, Accra, Ghana, 17 January 2011.

  17. Focus group interview with scientists, National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike, Nigeria, 27 January 2011.

  18. Focus group interview with scientists (A), University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 5 January 2011.

  19. Individual interview with policymaker, the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), Accra, Ghana, 17 January 2011.

  20. Focus group interview with scientists (B), University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 5 January 2011.

  21. The African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) is a non-profit organisation that facilitates delivery and access to appropriate agricultural technologies through public-private partnerships for sustainable use by smallholder farmers in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) (see http://www.aatf-africa.org/).

  22. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international agreement which aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health (see:http://bch.cbd.int/protocol).

References

  • Alhassan, W. S. (2003). Agrobiotechnology application in West and Central Africa. Ibadan: IITA. 107 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., Ismael, Y., Kambhampati, U., & Morse, S. (2004). Economic impact of genetically-modified cotton in India. AgBioForum, 7(3), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., Morse, S., & Ismael, Y. (2003). Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture, 32, 123–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bett, C., Ouma, J. K., & De Groote, H. (2010). Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food. Food Policy, 35, 332–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, J. (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research theory and practice. London: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2012). GM crops: Global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2010. Dorchester: PG Economics Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD. (2000). Convention on biological diversity (CBD):Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: Text and annexes. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. www.biodiv.org/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2012.

  • Choi, B.C., Pang, T., Lin, V., Puska, P., Sherman, G., Goddard, M., Ackland, M. J., Sainsbury, P., Stachenko, S., Morrison, H., Clottey, C. (2005). Can scientists and policy makers work together? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 632–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, J. G., & Downie, R. (2010). African perspectives on genetically modified crops: Assessing the debate in Zambia, Kenya, and South Africa. A report of the CSIS Global Food Security Project. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibden, J., Gibbs, D., & Cocklin, C. (2013). Framing GM crops as a food security solution. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 59–70. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.11.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA. (2012). European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Review of the Séralini et al. (2012) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology. EFSA Journal, 10(10), 2910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firbank, L. G., Dewar, A. M., Hill, M. O., May, M. J., Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., et al. (1999). Farm-scale evaluation of GM crops explained. Nature, 399, 727–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • France, B. (2011). How post normal views of science have contributed to a model of communication about biotechnology. Future, 43(2), 166–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouse, M., Kirsten, J., Shankar, B., & Thirtle, C. (2005). Bt cotton in KwaZulu-Natal: Technological triumph but institutional failure. AgBiotechNet, 7, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallman, W., Adelaja, B., Schilling, B., & Lang, J. T. (2001). Consumer beliefs, attitudes and preferences regarding agricultural biotechnology. New Brienswick, New Jersey: Food Industry Center, Food Policy Institute, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. J. (2004). Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology. ESA Working Paper 04-09.

  • James, C. (2013). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2012 (ISAAA Brief No. 44). Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

  • Kikulwe, E. M., Wesseler, J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2011). Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda. Appetite, 57(2), 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., & Knoke, D. (1987). The organisational state. Social choice in national policy domains. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogues, T., Morris, M., Freinkman, L., Adubi, A., Ehui, S., Nwoko, C., Taiwo, O., Nege, C., Okonji, P., & Chete, L. (2008). Agricultural public spending in Nigeria. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). IFPRI Discussion Paper 00789.

  • Morris, E. J. (2011). Modern biotechnology-potential contribution and challenges for sustainable food production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 3, 809–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nin-Pratt, A., Johnson, M., Magalhaes, E., You, L., Diao, X., & Chamberlin, J. (2011). Yield gaps and potential agricultural growth in West and Central Africa. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2010). National Research Council. Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability in the United States.

  • Paarlberg, R. (2006). Are genetically modified (GM) crops a commercial risk for Africa ? International Journal on Technology and Globalisation, 2, 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnurr, M. A. (2012). Inventing Makhathini: Creating a prototype for the dissemination of genetically modified crops into Africa. Geoforum, 43, 784–792. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (2005). Context-bound knowledge production, capacity building and new product networks. Journal of International Development, 17, 647–659. doi:10.1002/jid.1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J. (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science. The shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe. EMBO Rep 10(S1), S18–S22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirtle, C., Beyers, L., Ismael, Y., & Piesse, J. (2003). Can GM-technologies help the poor? The impact of Bt cotton in the Makhathini flats of KwaZulu-Natal. World Development, 31, 717–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, A., & Robinson, C. (2004). When goliaths clash: US and EU differences over the labeling of food products derived from genetically modified organisms. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2010). The Current Status of Science around the World. UNESCO Science Report. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001899/189958e.pdf. Accessed 26 December 2012.

  • USDA. (2011). Agricultural Biotechnology Annual Report. Ghana: United States Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Haperen, P. F., Gremmen, B., & Jacobs, J. (2012). Reconstruction of the ethical debate on naturalness in discussions about plant-biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 797–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wambugu, F. (1999). Why Africa needs agricultural biotech. Nature, 400, 15–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wield, D., Chataway, J., & Bolo, M. (2010). Issues in the political economy of agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(3), 342–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Author would like to thank the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for support. All interview participants at the Research Institutes, Universities, Agriculture Ministries, Parliament and other departments in Ghana and Nigeria are gratefully acknowledged for their valuable time and contributions. Special thanks to Prof. Bev France (University of Auckland, New Zealand), Dr. Wendy Harwood (John Innes Centre, UK), Prof. David Gibbs (University of Hull, UK) and Prof. Diran Makinde (African Biosafety Network of Expertise, Burkina Faso) for their helpful review and constructive comments in improving the quality of the manuscript. I would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and insights. Any errors that remain in this study are my sole responsibility.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), 6F International Organisations Centre, Pacifico Yokohama, 1-1-1 Minato Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama, 220-8502, Japan

    Ademola A. Adenle

Authors
  1. Ademola A. Adenle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ademola A. Adenle.

Appendix

Appendix

The interview questions

What is the overall strategy for science and technology innovation with regards to sustainable agriculture?

What is your general understanding on the application of agriculture biotechnology?

What is the current state of research capacity for agricultural biotechnology?

Do you have concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?

Would you like to eat GM foods?

What is the current state of biosafety regulation?

Are you aware of any GMO field trial in the country?

What causes delay in policy development and implementation?

Do you think European government influence the decision of your government on application of GMOs?

What do you consider as the major factors affecting the adoption of GM technology?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adenle, A.A. Stakeholders’ Perceptions of GM Technology in West Africa: Assessing the Responses of Policymakers and Scientists in Ghana and Nigeria. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 241–263 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9462-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9462-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation