.r.1.l)t
1.,
r

F.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.vfl
.

€33.13»

)5 Wind

"raw

.a.
A.

. 5.02:;

3......—
.141

.0.-
.v n

on?

1‘1
I.

A.

 

2.: .l _
34%
\. I1»-
. ”1.....2.

x.-

L

. ) .rr.
1.6.03".
4.35.“.

’ul“

Hub

"id"?
n .. a.

yr... 9....
‘9.) t. .2 5..
Ls]. §I¢§

in

{MENU

9
' :00}

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PERCEPTIONS OF BIOENGINEERED FOOD
INNOVATIONS: THE GHANAIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS’
PERSPECTIVE

presented by

DOE ADOVOR

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Department of Community,
Science Agriculture, Recreation, and
Resource Studies

 

 

BMW/c9006

Major Professor’s Signature

 

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

--.--4-.-»---— -

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DaleDue.indd-p.‘l

 

PERCEPTIONS OF BIOENGINEERED FOOD INNOVATIONS: THE
GHANAIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE

By

Doe Adovor

A THESIS

submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies

2006

ABSTRACT

PERCEPTIONS AND DISCOURSES OF BIOENGINEERED FOOD INNOVATIONS:
THE GHANAIAN COLLEGE STUDENT’S OUTLOOK
By

Doe Adovor
Potential risks and benefits associated with bioengineered food innovations have
generated substantial debate in both developed and developing countries. While some
view biotechnology as a symbol of hope in securing safer, more abundant food, others
remain ambivalent about the potential benefits and risks. This study used a quantitative
survey method to explore Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology Agricultural Science students’ perceptions of agricultural biotechnology. To
determine how different information sources influence respondents’ self perceived
knowledge, self perceived knowledge of biotechnology treated as the dependent variable
was correlated with different information sources used in seeking knowledge about
biotechnology. Logit and Probit models were used to determine the probability that a
respondent will say his/her knowledge is high when a particular information source is
used in isolation. Findings from the study suggest that, disregarding the duration of use,
the more information sources respondents use in seeking knowledge about
biotechnology, the more likely they are to perceive their knowledge as high. “Friends’
Belief about Biotechnology” (interpersonal channel), Internet, Newspaper and Radio
(mass communication channels), were found to be statistically significant in influencing

respondents’ self perceived knowledge of biotechnology.

Copyright by
DOE ADOVOR
2006

DEDICATION

To my wife
Clarice Mensah
whose love and encouragement keep
my academic aspirations alive

To my daughter
Volta Elolo Adovor
whose wonderful smiles fuel my
desire to succeed in life

To my parents
Samuel and Grace Adovor
who have always encouraged
me to live my dreams

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Kirk Heinze, for giving
me the opportunity to work under his supervision. I am thankful for his direction, and
devotion to this thesis. Not everyone gets the opportunity to work with such a
distinguished individual. I feel honored and proud to be one of Dr. Heinze’s students. I
wish to also thank all my committee members: Dr. Luke Reese, Dr. Peter Achuonjei, and
Dr. Gary Wigenbach for their guidance throughout this process. Specifically, I would like
to thank Dr. Achuonj ei for providing me with financial support throughout my masters
program through the MSU Ghana Partnerships for Food Industry Development Program.
Dr. Achuonjei gave me a rare opportunity to grow as a researcher and an independent
thinker. For that I am truly grateful. I owe a depth of gratitude to Dr. Wigenbach for
sharing his past research work with me. This helped shape my own research. Special
thanks to Dr. Luke Reese for his critical review of the thesis which transformed the
document. Dr. Michael Woods, my former advisor, deserves a lot of credit for helping
craft this research idea. Dr. Woods was one of the best mentors Iihave had, and I will
forever remain grateful.

I owe a depth of gratitude to Dr. Richard Akromah of KNUST and his research
assistant, Mr. Ernest Barfi, for their help in the questionnaire design and data collection.
Special thanks to my good friend Andrew Kizito Muganga for his help with the statistical
analysis.

Lastly, I would like to thank all my brothers and sisters: Elenu, Ekeke,
Nyuiewodze, Amenyedu, Woetsa, Ehui and all the extended Adovor family and my in-

laws for their love, encouragement and support throughout the course of my study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS VI
LIST OF TABLES IX
LIST OF FIGURES XI
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Agricultural Biotechnology and Food Security 1
1.2 Population Growth, Productive Resources and Food Security 1
1.4 Population Growth, Malnutrition and Productive Resources 3
1.4 Significance of the Study 6
1.5 Problem Statement 6
1.6 Purpose 7
1.7 Theoretical Framework 9
1.8 Conceptual Model of How Information and Communication Channels Impact Perceptions of
Agricultural Biotechnology 12
1.9 Limitations of the Study 13
1.10 Terms and Definitions 14
1.11 Summary 16
CHAPTER TWO 17
LITERATURE REVIEW 17
2.1 Chapter Preview 17
2.2 Historical Foundation of Bioengineered Food Innovations 17
2.3 Opposing views on Bioengineered Food Innovations 20
2.4 Perceptions of Biotechnology in Developed and Developing Countries 30
2.5 Information Sources and Perceptions of Biotechnology 32
2.6 Summary 36
CHAPTER THREE 37
METHODOLOGY 37
3.1 Chapter Preview 37
3.2 Research Design 37
3.3 Population 37
3.4 Instrument Design 38
3.6 Data Collection 42
3.7 Data Analysis Procedure 43
3.8 Summary 45
CHAPTER FOUR 46
FINDINGS 4
4.1 Chapter Preview 46

 

vi

4.2 OBJECTIVE 1: To Describe the Demographic Composition of Agricultural Science Students in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KNUST. 47
4.3 OBJECTIVE 2: To Describe Current Perceptions of Bioengineered Food Innovations Amongst

KNUST Agricultural Science Students 48
4.3.1 Effect of Biotechnology on Selected Activities 48
4.3.2 Importance of Biotechnology Research Regarding Selected Activities 49
4.3.3 Confidence in Statements Made about Bioengineered Food Innovations 51
4.3.4 Importance of Investigating Claims made about Bioengineered Food Innovations 54
4.3.5 Extent to Which Selected Issues Impact Perceptions of Biotechnology 56

4.4 OBJECTIVE 3: To Determine KNUST Students’ Perceptions Regarding Government Efforts in
Instituting Appropriate Frameworks Aimed at Facilitating the Adoption and

 

 

Implementation of Bioengineered Food Innovations in Ghana 58

4.5 OBJECTIVE 4: To Determine Sources of Information Used by KNUST Students in Establishing
their Knowledge and Perceptions of Biotechnology. 60
4.5.1 Extent to which selected sources are used to obtain information on biotechnology ----------- 60

4.5.2 Extent to which something about bioengineered food innovations is heard from selected sources 63
4.5.3 Extent to which selected social interactions impact students’ perceptions of bioengineered food
innovations 66

 

4.6 OBJECTIVE 5: How Different Information Sources/Channels Influence Respondents’ Self

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology. 68
4.7 Knowledge Cross Tabulations 69
4.8 Cross Tabulations with Demographic Variables 83
4.9 Probit and Logit Model 35
4.10 Probit and Logit Classifications 92
4.11 Summary 93
CHAPTER FIVE 94
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 94
5.1 Chapter Preview 94
5.2 OBJECTIVE 1: To Describe the Demographic Composition of Agricultural Science Students in
KNUST. 94
5.2.1 Summary of Findings 94
5.2.2 Discussion 95
5.2.3 Recommendations 96

 

5.3 OBJECTIVE 2: To Describe Current Perceptions of Bioengineered Food Innovations Amongst

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KN UST Agricultural Science Students 97
5.3.1 Summary of Findings: One 97
5.3.2 Discussion: One 97
5.3.3 Recommendations: One 98
5.3.4 Summary of Findings: Two 99
5.3.5 Discussion: Two 99
5.3.6 Recommendations: Two 101
5.3.7 Summary of Findings: Three - 103
5.3.8 Discussion: ee 104
5.3.9 Recommendations: Three 106
5.3.10 Summary of Findings Four 107
5.3.9 Discussion: Four 107
5.3.11 Recommendations Four 109

 

vii

 

5.3.12 Summary of Findings Five 109
5.3.13 Discussion Five 109
5.3.14 Recommendations Five 111

 

 

5.4 OBJECTIVE 3: To Determine KNUST Students’ Perceptions Regarding Government Efforts In
Instituting Appropriate Frameworks Aimed at Facilitating the Adoption and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Implementation of Bioengineered Food Innovations in Ghana. 113
5.4.1 Summary of Findings One , 113
5.4.2 Discussion One 113
5.4.3 Recommendations One 116
5.4.4 Summary of Findings Two 117
5.4.5 Discussion Two 117
5.4.6 Recommendations Two 119

5.5 OBJECTIVE 4: To Determine Sources of Information used by KNUST Students in Establishing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

their Knowledge and Perceptions Regarding Bioengineered Food Innovations.-—--—--- 123
5.5.1 Summary of Findings One (a) 123
5.5.2 Summary of Findings One (b) 123
5.5.3 Summary of Findings One (0) 124
5.5.4 Discussion One 124
5.5.5 Recommendations One 127
5.6 OBJECTIVE 5: To Describe How Different Sources of Information Influence Respondents’ Self
Perceived Knowledge of Bioengineered Food Innovations. 128
5.6.1 Summary of Findings 128
5.6.2 Discussion 129
5.6.3 Recommendations 130
5.7 CONCLUSION 130
5.8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 133
BIBLIOGRAPGHY 136
APPENDIX A 144
Letter to the Dean of KNUST 144
APPENDIX B 146
The Survey Questionnaire 146
APPENDIX C 151

 

 

Age Distribution of Respondents 151

viii

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

TABLE 1: Regular and Modified Rating Scales Used in Survey Instrument 41
TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics of Demographics 47

TABLE 3: Descriptive Statistics of Impact of Bioengineered Food Innovations --------- 48

TABLE 4: Descriptive Statistics of the Importance of Bioengineered Food Innovations
Research 50

 

TABLE 5: Descriptive Statistics of Level of Confidence in Statements Made by
Different Groups about Biotechnology Research 52

 

TABLE 6: Descriptive Statistics of Level of Importance Placed on Investigating
Statements Made by Different Groups Regarding Biotechnology -------- 54

TABLE 7: Descriptive Statistics of Different Factors/Issues That Impact Biotechnology
Perceptions 57

 

TABLE 8: Descriptive Statistics of Government’s Role in Biotechnology Research, Bio-
Safety, Labeling and Patents in Ghana 59

 

TABLE 9: Descriptive Statistics of Sources of Information on Biotechnology ---------- 61

TABLE 10: Descriptive Statistics of Sources Used to Receive Information on
Biotechnology 63

 

TABLE 11: Descriptive Statistics of Different Social Interactions Used in Establishing
Perceptions of Biotechnology 66

 

TABLE 12: Descriptive Statistics of Student’s Perceived Knowledge Regarding
Biotechnology 68

 

TABLE 13: Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned
With Utilization of Sources of Information 70

 

TABLE 14: Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned
With Utilization/Awareness of Information Sources 73

 

TABLE 15: Cross Tabulation— Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned
With Different Experiences 74

 

ix

TABLE 16:

TABLE 17:

TABLE 18:

TABLE 19:

TABLE 20:

TABLE 21:

TABLE 22:

TABLE 23:

TABLE 24:

TABLE 25:

TABLE 26:

Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned

With Different Types of Biotechnology Research 76

 

Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned
With Confidence in Statement Made About Biotechnology by

Spokespersons from Different Organizations 78

 

Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned
Importance of Investigating Claims Made About Biotechnology by

Spokespersons from Different Organizations 80

 

Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned
With Confidence in Government Policies Regarding Biotechnology ---- 81

Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned

With Gender 83

 

Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned

With Age Distribution 84

 

Probit Estimate Results of Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology -- 9O
Logit Estimate Results of Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology --- 9]

Classification of Predicted and Actual Level of Knowledge 92

 

Alternative Models of Biotechnology Regulation in the US and EU ------ 114

Rogers Adopter Categories and Characteristics 133

 

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Conceptual Model of Information/Communication Channels and
Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology

 

xi

12

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Agricultural Biotechnology and Food Security

The main focus of this study is to assess how bioengineered food innovations,
otherwise known as modern biotechnology, are perceived among agricultural science
students from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNU ST) in
Kumasi, Ghana. The thesis also presents theoretical and empirical work on bioengineered
food innovations and how different individuals, groups and institutions in both developed
and developing countries perceive them. To set the stage for this study, chapter one
explores the relationship between agricultural production, population dynamics, and food
security within a global context, but with particular reference to Africa. Also, chapter one

presents the theoretical and conceptual framework on which the study is based.

1.2 Population Growth, Productive Resources and Food Security

A recurring theme in the world food discussion over the past two decades has been
the role of bioengineered food innovations in ensuring food security in developing
countries. Famine and hunger are both rooted in food insecurity (Ayalew, 1997) yet,
ensuring food security in developing countries requires harmonizing complex activities
such as agricultural production, natural resource conservation, and population dynamics,
a process that many contend could be made feasible with the help of modern agricultural
biotechnology. For example, Curtis, McCluskey and Wahl (2004) claim that increased
yields from bioengineered crops may provide the answer to food availability issues in the
developing world. During the “Proceedings of the African Regional Conference for

International Cooperation on Safety in Biotechnology” held in Harare Zimbabwe,

Professor Chell touted the science of plant biotechnology by saying it can significantly
help make intensive agriculture less damaging to the environment and also make low
input (organic) agriculture more productive. Chell (1993) also claimed that in the face of
an increasing world population and limited cultivatable land, plant biotechnology is one
of the few and most effective methods available to maintain and improve agricultural
productivity without destroying the environment.

According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the
growth potential of most developing countries including those of Sub-Saharan Africa is
threatened by population explosion, landlessness, poverty, rural unemployment, low
returns on productive labor, and massive degradation of the continent’s natural resource
base (FAO-AF WC, 2000). Although there are many contributing factors to poverty and
hunger in Africa, poor performance of the agricultural sector is believed to contribute the
most to Afiica’s problems (USAID and IF PRI, 2002). It is estimated that 80% of all
Africans depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, a sector that accounts for 70% of full
time employment, one third of total GDP, and 40% of total export earnings (USAID and
IF PR1, 2002).

1.3 Global Population Growth Trends and Food Production

With a current population size of 887,223,898 million (GeoHIVE, 2005), Afiica’s
population is expected to increase by more than two fold to 1.8 billion by 2050
(Associated Press, 2000). During the same period Europe’s population is expected to
decrease from 728 million to 658 million, while the United State is expected to rise from
275 million to 403 million by mid-century, a moderate growth attributed to overall

positive economic forecast and continued immigration (Associated Press, 2000). Africa’s

projected population growth for the next 50 years calls into question the ability for
productive resources (i.e., arable land, water, energy, and biological resources) to provide
sustenance for humans and other life forms. It may be deduced from Malthus’ principles
of population that the inability of productive resources to keep up with the rising human
population most likely will result in a country’s inability to feed its self (Malthus, 1798).
Shapuori and Rosen (2001) argue that a country’s domestic food production is less
critical to food security if it can import required foods. However, financial constraints
limit food imports in most Afiican countries. Shapuori and Rosen (2001) explain that if
only imports grew at a slightly greater rate than projected, the food gap in most of North
Africa could close entirely. On the other hand, many have argued that for Sub-Saharan
Afiica to close its average nutrition gap, food imports would have to grow by more than
9% annually for the next decade, a growth rate contended by experts to be extremely
unlikely, given the region’s historic import growth rate of less that 5% (Shapuori &

Rosen, 2001 ).

1.4 Population Growth, Malnutrition and Productive Resources

On the global scale, approximately 842 million people world wide were
malnourished between 1999 and 2001, with nearly 80% women and children (F AO,
2004a). Asia and the Pacific currently account for nearly two-thirds of total global cases
of malnutrition; however, the situation is especially severe in Central, East and Southern
Afiica, where 44% of the total population is undernourished (Hunger Notes, 2004). A
technical report in support of USAID’s agricultural initiative to cut hunger in Afiica
released August 23, 2002, revealed that one in three people in Africa are currently

undernourished and a third of the entire world’s undernourished people reside in Sub-

Saharan Afiica (USAID and IFPRI, 2002). It has been predicted by the same report that
by 2010 Africa may account for nearly two-thirds of all undernourished cases world wide
(USAID and IFPRI, 2002).

In addition to Afiica’s record high malnutrition and population growth rates,
research shows that nearly half of the continent’s farmland suffers from erosion and
nutrient depletion (Cleaver and Schreiber, 1994; cited in Haggblade et al. 2003). Nutrient
balance studies suggest annual losses of 22 kg of nitrogen, 2.5 kg phosphorous, and 15 kg
of potassium over the last three decades, a nutrient loss valued at $1 - 3 billion per year
(Smaling et al. 1997; and Sanchez et al. 1997; cited in Haggblade et al. 2003). During the
39th annual meeting of the Association for International and Rural Development in
Washington DC, Anthony Wayne, the United States’ Assistant Secretary for Economic
and Business Affairs claimed that nearly 2 billion hectares of global arable land has been
rendered irreversibly unproductive by soil erosion, salinization, and depletion of organic
matter. It is estimated that, without conservation or the use of appropriate technologies,
more than 500 million hectares of rain-fed cropland may become unproductive over the
long term in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Wayne, 2003). Similar to the situation in
most of Asia, food security experts assert that by 205 0, efforts required to ensure food
security in Africa and most of the third world will take place under a situation in which
yield levels would have already reached a plateau with existing technologies (APO,
1994)

More than any other factor, population growth is said to affect the acquisition and
availability of farmlands. In most of Africa and the developing world, where farmlands

pass from one generation to other, the result is a high rate of land fragmentation (division

among wives and children) (Osei, 2003). The high rates of population growth in
developing countries and associated land fragmentation make it difficult for farmers to
produce enough food to feed the hungry (Osei, 2003). Estimates show that between 1970
and 1990, India recorded roughly 49 million to 82 million small arable farmlands with
less than 2 ha (5 acres) in farm size. Expects argue that if this trend continues these
shrinking farmlands will be unable to support a society expected to add about 515 million
people to its current population of 1 billion by 2050 (Osei, 2003). In Pakistan where the
population is projected to increase from the current 156 million to 345 million by 2050,
the average farm size is predicted to shrink from 0.08 ha to. 0.03ha (the size of a tennis
court) (Osei, 2003). Nigeria, with a current population figure of 111 million is projected
to increase to 244 million by 2050. During the same period, Nigeria’s per capita farmland
is predicted to shrink from 0.15 ha to 0.07 ha thus rendering Nigeria’s precarious food
production prospect far more difficult (Osei, 2003). Ghana faces a similar fate if the
problem of land division and subdivision continues. Ghana is also expected to add an
additional 45 million to its current 20 million by the year 2050 and the average farm size
is predicted to fall from 0.25 to 0.09 ha/capita (Osei, 2003). High population growth rates
coupled with negative agrarian structures and radical changes in world trade scenarios
present a bleak picture of Africa’s future economic development (Shapuori & Rosen,
2001). With dwindling arable land, the challenge is to provide sustenance for a rapidly '
growing world population on increasingly smaller plots of land. Experts predict that
population explosion expected to occur in the developing world in the next five decades
calls for renewed efforts in ensuring food security for a large population currently

dependent on a rapidly degrading resource base (APO, 1994).

1.4 Significance of the Study

Food insecurity and famine in Eastern and Southern Africa in recent years have
generated a lot of debate and controversy among different political groups and
researchers. A recent study states that this debate, which has been largely confined to
small and often isolated groups of African scientists and environmental activists, is
largely focused on whether products of modern biotechnology, particularly genetically
modified (GM) crops, will contribute to the solution of ensuring food security in the
region (Mugabe, 2004). Hosain, Onyango, Adelaja, Shilling and Hallrnan (2002) argue
that considerable skepticism amongst scientists, corporations and governments has a
negative influence on public perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. Personal and
socio-cultural and economic attributes influence how people perceive modern
biotechnology. This study is concerned with perceptions of bioengineered food
innovations among agricultural science students from KNUST and how these perceptions
are influenced by personal attributes, different institutions including the mass media,

research, culture and religion.

1.5 Problem Statement

Currently, most developing countries are under enormous internal and external
pressure to insure food security to their populations through environmentally sustainable
means. Many researchers, including Clark and J uma (1991), claim modern biotechnology
has the potential to improve the Third World environment through ecological
rehabilitation andpollution abatement. On the medical front, Walgate (1995) claims
biotechnology heralds a new era of Third World preventative and curative medicine. In

his speech during the 39th annual meeting of association of international and rural

development, the United States Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Anthony
Wayne stressed that biotechnology offers tremendous potential for increasing
productivity and income for the poor in developing countries. Many experts believe that
introducing high yielding GM plant varieties, agro-chemicals and new irrigation
techniques into agricultural systems in developing countries, just like the Green
Revolution of the 19605 and 19703 will help lift millions in developing countries out of
hunger and poverty (F AO, 2004b). Walgate (1995) stressed the potential of
biotechnology to provide enough food to feed the hungry in developing countries by
making the claim that the yield from cassava, rice, maize and other staple food crops
could be quadrupled by producing disease resistant varieties with the aid of
biotechnology.

In 2002, Zambia, faced with hunger and starvation, rejected GM corn from the
United States on the premise of perceived safety risks associated with foods derived from
biotechnology. Even though most critiques claim fear of jeopardizing trade with the EU
lies at the core of Zambia’s actions, the fact still remains that a knowledge gap exists on
research aimed at assessing how potential beneficiaries of bioengineered food
innovations in developing countries perceive modern biotechnology and its associated
costs and benefits. More research aimed at assessing indigenous perceptions and risks of
bioengineered food innovations in Africa and other developing countries is thus needed

to better understand and perhaps close this knowledge gap.

1.6 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine KNUST agricultural science students’

perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. The rationale for selecting a group of

agricultural science students for this study is that they are the future change agents (i.e.,

agricultural communicators, educators, policy makers, etc.) of agricultural biotechnology

in Ghana. The study is used to firlfill the following objectives:

1.

To describe the demographic composition of agricultural science students in
KNU ST.

To describe current perceptions of bioengineered food innovations amongst
KNU ST agricultural science students.

To determine KNU ST students’ perceptions regarding government efforts in
instituting appropriate frameworks aimed at facilitating adoption and
implementation of bioengineered food innovations in Ghana.

To determine sources of information used by KNUST students in establishing
their knowledge and perceptions regarding bioengineered food innovations.
To describe how different sources of information influence respondents’ self

perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations.

The objectives outlined above were used to construct the following research questions:

I.

What information sources do KNUST agricultural science students use to obtain
information about bioengineered food innovations?

What information sources do KNUST agricultural science students believe are
most credible regarding information about bioengineered food innovations?

How do different information sources influence KNUST students’ perceptions of

bioengineered food innovations?

1.7 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study is provided by Everett Rogers in his
1962 seminal work, “Diffusion of Innovations. Rogers (2003, p. 38) defines “diffusion”
as the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over
time among members of a social system.” Rogers explains that diffusion is a special type
of communication in which the message is concerned with new ideas. In Ghana and most
of Afiica and the developing world, the concept of modern biotechnology is relatively
new; hence, sharing information about biotechnology (the focus of this study) falls under
the special type of communication described by Rogers. The newness of modern
agricultural biotechnology in most developing countries, according to Rogers (2003),
implies that some degree of uncertainty is involved in its diffusion process.

A communication channel is the means by which the message gets from one
individual to another (Rogers, 2003). At its elementary form, the communication process
according to Rogers (2003), involves: 1) an innovation (e.g., agricultural biotechnology
in this case), 2) an individual or other unit of adoption that has knowledge of, or has
experience using the innovation (e.g., researchers/scientists, etc.), 3) another individual or
other unit that does not yet have knowledge of, or experience using the innovation (e.g.,
governments, students, producers and some scientists), and 4) a communication channel

connecting the two units (e. g., mass media).

1.7.1 Rogers Innovation Decision Process

The innovation—decision process is the process through which an individual (or
other decision making unit) passes from the first knowledge stage of an innovation, to the

formation of perceptions and attitudes towards the innovation, to a decision to either

adopt or reject, to implementation and use of the new idea, and to confirmation of this
decision (Rogers, 2003, p. 61). The five steps involved in a typical irmovation-decision
process, e. g., the decision by social units in developing countries to either adopt or reject
modern biotechnology, includes: 1) knowledge, 2) persuasion, 3) decision, 4)
implementation, and 5) confirmation. Rogers (2003) explains that knowledge is gained
when an individual (or other decision making unit) Ieams of the innovation’s existence
and gains some understanding of how it functions. “Persuasion takes place when an
individual forms a favorable or unfavorable perception and/or attitude towards the
innovation. Decision occurs when an individual engages in activities that lead to a choice
to adopt or reject the innovation. Implementation takes place when an individual puts an
innovation into use. Re-invention is especially likely to take place at the implementation
stage. Confirmation occurs when an individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation-
decision that has already been made, but he or she may reverse this previous decision if

exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 62).

1.7.2 Social System

“A social system is defined as a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem
solving to accomplish a common goal” (Rogers, 2003, p. 67). A social system may be
composed of individuals, informal groups, organizations, and /or subsystems (Rogers, _
2003). “The social system constitutes a boundary within which an innovation diffuses”
(Rogers, 2003, p. 67). Structure exists in a social system because of differences in
culture, personal behavior and other social characteristics of the individuals or units

within the system (Rogers, 2003). As diffusion occurs within a social system the social

10

structure of the system affects the innovation’s diffusion in several ways, hence the social

system can either facilitate or impede the diffiision of an innovation (Rogers, 2003).

1.7.3 Change Agent

Mentioned earlier, the primary reason for selecting agricultural science students
for this is study is their role as principal change agents of agricultural biotechnology in
Ghana. A wide range of occupations may fit the definition of a change agent. For
example, teachers, consultants, public health workers, agricultural extension agents,
development workers, and sales people may be considered change agents in facilitating
the adoption of modern biotechnology in a social system. The task of a change agent
according to Rogers (2003) is to provide communication links between a resource system
and client system. The change agent thus facilitates the flow of innovation from the
change agency to an audience of clients (Rogers, 2003). For this type of communication
to be effective, Rogers contends that the innovation must be selected to match clients’
needs. “Feedback from the client system must flow through the change agent to the
change agency so that it appropriately adjusts its intervention program to fit the changing
needs of clients” (Rogers, 2003, p. 590). Change agency personnel (agents) may be
university graduates with a Ph.D. in agriculture or possess some technical training in a
specific field in question (Rogers, 2003, p. 591). Rogers (2003, p. 592) outlines the role
of the change agent to include: 1) to develop the need for a change, 2) to establish an
information exchange relationship, 3) to diagnose the problem, 4) to create an intent to
change in the client, 5) to translate an intent into action, 6) to stabilize adoption and to

prevent discontinuance, and 7) to achieve a terminal relationship.

11

1.8 Conceptual Model of How Information and Communication Channels Impact

Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology

The conceptual framework used in this study is built on the premise that various

factors including gender, socio-economic characteristics, information sources and

channels, global perception, self perceived knowledge all affect how an individual

perceives agricultural biotechnology. The two variables of interest in the study are

students’ perceptions of agricultural biotechnology and students’ self perceived

knowledge of agricultural biotechnology.

 

 

 

Global Perceptions

l

 

 

Socio—cultural and Economic Characteristics

 

 

 

I \\

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

O
66
°’/
0 '8
0% ’5'.
n 0,.
v; . «a
To ’0 0.»
0,, e,
(P /

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i
Q

 

 

\
m 8 U)
'3 g g / ( Perceptions of
§ <—> e2 ‘2 gr Agricultural ‘.
u __ o r . I K V
0- %— -.-.- Biotechnolo
“a 3 E '3: k gy J
.D a) ._
r3 3 8 * .“
.2 t: , «
9’ ‘

\li
sootnos uotreurmjuj
ur 1an JJKIIIIqIPOJQ

 

 

 

 

 

‘/

 

 

 

Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology

 

 

 

 

 

80b ‘

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Information/Communication Channels and

Perceptions of Biotechnology

12

The conceptual framework described above draws heavily on Rogers’ theory of
“diffusion of innovation.” Figure 1 shows how the independent variables interact with
each other to influence students’ perceptions of modern agricultural biotechnology
(treated as the dependent variable). All arrows connecting the independent variables to
each other depict a two-way flow of information. Rogers and Kincaid (1981) explain that
the communication process involved in informing an audience like KNUST students may
be viewed as a two-way process of convergence rather than as a one-way, linear act in
which one individual seeks to transfer a message to another in order to achieve certain
effects.

In terms of students’ perceptions of agricultural biotechnology, self perceived
knowledge is treated as an independent variable that influences how one perceives
agricultural biotechnology. The independent variables of interest in this study include
demographic characteristics, different information and communication channels (e.g.,
mass media, university course work, government and non-govemmental organizations),
knowledge of the subject and the potential impact of bioengineered food innovations on

the environment and different life forms.

1.9 Limitations of the Study

Even though the data were collected through trusted contacts in Ghana, it is
assumed that because the researcher at MSU was not physically present in Ghana, it was
not feasible to have full control over data collection.

Given that data collection was done very close to final exams, there is the

possibility that the questionnaire was not given full and undivided attention by

13

respondents. Also, the timing of data collection did not allow for double dipping because
students went on summer vacation right after the data were collected. Even if double
dipping were possible, the final year students would be excluded because they would
have completed their programs and would be unlikely to participate in the follow-up
process.

Due to negative connotations associated with the word “biotech” and genetic
engineering, these two terms were avoided throughout the study. Throughout the study,
the term biotechnology and modern biotechnology were used consistently and
interchangeably with bioengineered food innovations.

The instrument design did not give respondents an opportunity to include
additional comments or personal thoughts on the research topic. No space was provided
on the instrument itself nor was additional comments invited. Even though this was done
in part to allow for simplicity in analyzing the data using SPSS, it has limitations of

excluding comments that could be used to improve on firture studies.

1.10 Terms and Definitions

Attitude: Formed as a result of daily social interaction, through direct experience with the
subject and verbal transmission of beliefs and evaluation about the subject (Benner,
1985). Unlike perceptions, attitudes are based on long term evaluation of the outcomes
associated with a particular activity in this case modern agricultural biotechnology. Like
perception, one’s attitude is often influenced by socio-cultural and economic background.
Biotechnolggy: The application of biological research techniques to the development of

products that improve human health, animal health, and agriculture (Genencor, 2005).

14

E_ar_m_i_n_e_; Drastic, wide-reaching, long-term shortages or lack of food caused by the
regional failure of food production or good distribution systems (ECOHEALTH, 2005).
War, poverty, drought, floods, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and other natural and man
made disasters can cause farnines (Disaster Relief, 2005).

Food Security: The notion that all people in a community, especially the most vulnerable,
have reliable access to good nutritious food into the future (PBS, 2005).

Knowledge: The act or state of knowing or having a clear perception of fact, truth, or
duty. Knowledge is considered the highest degree of the speculative faculties and is based
on the perception of truth based on familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained
through experience or study. Knowledge is the result of a cumulative effect of what has
been perceived, discovered, or learned through specific information about a subject. It
involves a vivid representation of fact, formula, or complex condition backed by strong
belief in its truth (Corsini, 1999)

Perception: “The awareness of the senses being stimulated by external objects, qualities
ore relations (Corsini, 1999, p. 705).” One’s perception about an. activity is formed
shortly after the period of exposure (based on immediate experiences), as opposed to
memory; ability to select, organize, and interpret various sensory experiences into
recognizable patterns (Corsini, 1999). Within the context of this thesis, perception refers
to respondents’ subjective assessment of the probability that modern biotechnology
application will yield particular outcomes (either negative or positive for example
increased food production or damage to the environment etc.). Students’ perception in
this thesis is influenced by the level of exposure to modern biotechnology and also by

socio-cultural and economic variables.

15

Sustainable Agriculture: Refers to farming systems that are capable of maintaining their

productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely (Gold, 1999).

1.11 Summary

This chapter presents a statement of the problem investigated in the study and the
context in which the problem was studied. Special attention is paid to Africa since it is
argued that most of Afiica is yet to reap the full benefits of bioengineered food
innovations. Studies conducted on biotechnology perceptions in both developing and

developed countries are presented in chapters two.

16

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Chapter Preview

This chapter draws on four areas of literature: 1) historical foundations of
bioengineered food innovations, 2) opposing views on bioengineered food innovations
(modern biotechnology), 3) perceptions of bioengineered food innovations in developed
and developing countries, and 4) information sources used in establishing perceptions of
bioengineered food innovations in developed and developing countries. The literature
reviewed in this chapter was used to define the study’s area of investigation and to set the
stage for addressing the study’s objectives and research questions outlined in chapter one

and five, respectively.

2.2 Historical Foundation of Bioengineered Food Innovations

The term biotechnology as it relates to bioengineered food innovations has been
defined in several different ways by different researchers. For instance, Peritore and
Galve-Peritore (1995) define modern biotechnology as a set of techniques drawn from
microbiology, genetics and biochemistry with the hope of creating products of
commercial value through genetic manipulation of living organisms. Also, the European
Federation of Biotechnology in 1981 described biotechnology as the integrated use of I
biochemistry, microbiology and chemical engineering in order to achieve the
technological application of the capabilities of microbes and culture of cells (Mahanti,

1998).

17

Agricultural biotechnology may be categorized into first, second and third
generation technologies (J uma and Mugabe, 1996). First generation biotechnology is
based on empirical practice with minimum scientific or technological inputs and dates
back to the Stone Age (J uma and Mugabe, 1996). First generation biotechnology makes
use of biological organisms such as bacteria, yeast, enzymes, and traditional methods of
fermentation to produce food and drinks, e. g., bread and wine (Juma and Mugabe, 1996).
Second generation biotechnology, however, involves the development of fermentation
technology using pure cell culture and sterile manufacturing facilities in an effort to
generate new products such as acetones, butanol, glycerol, vitamin BZ, citric acid, lactic
acid and penicillin (J uma and Mugabe, 1996). Third generation biotechnology, otherwise
known as modern biotechnology and the focus of this thesis, first took seed in 1953 with
the discovery at Cambridge University (UK) of the structure to DNA (J uma and Mugabe,
1996). It is believed that the practice of traditional plant and animal breeding to yield
desirable traits has been in existence for thousands of years in both the industrialized and
developing nations; however, it is the recent breaking of genetic codes in the
industrialized world that has revolutionized biotechnology (Gold, 1999). According to
Mausberg and Press-Merkur (1995), genetic engineering/modem biotechnology differs
significantly from traditional biotechnological techniques in that in modern
biotechnology, DNA from different species can be combined to create completely new
organisms referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

In “Biotechnology in Latin America: Politics, Impacts and Risks,” Patrick
Peritore (1995) provides a comprehensive review of how bioengineered food innovations

impact political economies and the environment in industrialized and developing

18

countries. Peritore and Galve-Peritore (1995) argue that while most genetic diversity (the
invaluable raw material of modern biological technology), is held by less developed
nations, the technology that helps to transform these vital raw materials into commodities
lies in “genetically poor” developed countries. Peritore (1995) also explains that because
of its power over basic life forms, bioengineered food innovation techniques, such as
biotechnology have captured the imagination of the public, corporate and government
elites by way of their promise to revolutionize all aspects of human activities including
medicine, industry and agriculture. Peritore and Galve-Peritore (1995) conclude that the
question of who masters the new technology is very relevant since modern biotechnology
promises immense profits and world market shares to corporations and nations. Adding
to Peritore and Galve-Peritore’s claim, Hassebrook and Hegyes (1989) observe that who
will be served by bioengineered food innovations and who will set the research agenda of
the experts becomes intensely important when only a few people control the tools and
language of the trade.

It has been argued that the promises of bioengineered food innovations are so
enormous that it is fairly easy for major economic and political actors and scientists to
neglect debates regarding the long term effects of releasing engineered organisms into
ecosystems whose basic dynamics are yet to be understood (Peritore, 1995; Lappe and
Bailey 1998; Juma and Mugabe, 1996). While bioengineered food innovations are
advancing rapidly, many biotechnology experts also argue that now is the time to
consider its effect on medicine, industry, and agriculture in developed nations and the
fragile economies of developing countries (Peritore, 1995; Lappe and Bailey 1998; Juma

and Mugabe, 1996).

19

2.3 Opposing views on Bioengineered Food Innovations

Proponents of bioengineered food innovations believe modern agricultural
biotechnology will help increase global food supply while sustaining the natural resource
base (Chell, 1993; Hosain et al. 2002; Hoban2003; and Blanchfield, 2004); however,
opponents claim these new technologies have the potential of limiting access to low-
income earners in developing countries (Lappe and Bailey, 1998). Hosain et al. (2002)
assert that agricultural food innovations have the potential to not only meet basic human
needs but to also bring a wide range of economic, environmental and health benefits
through the production of food, fiber and pharmaceuticals.

Heusing and English (2004) assert that, since 1994, genetically modified (GM)
crops have been planted on more than 67 million hectares (ha) in 18 countries worldwide.
Heusing and English (2004) further claim that the total hectares committed to GM crops
are increasing by more than 10% annually. Seven such crops currently grown include,
cotton, canola, maize, papaya, potato, soybean, and squash, but most of the world's
bioengineered hectarage is in cotton (7 million ha), maize (10 million ha), and soybean
(33 million ha) (Heusing and English, 2004).

Woodward, Brink and Burger (1999) point out that, in Africa, there are the
concomitant problems of food shortages, a burdened economy, political instability and
poor environmental sustainability. These problems according to Woodward et al. (1999)
have contributed to Africa lagging behind in reaping the benefits of the “Green
Revolution,” as well as the “Gene Revolution.” These authors suggest that Africa
implement strategies to increase the efficiency of food production as well as broadening

their food base to address problems of nutritional deficiencies. Since pests and diseases

20

. account for about 30% yield losses, GM crops would offer an approach which developing
countries cannot be excluded from (Vasil, 1998). Heusing and English (2004) claim that
at present virtually all GM crops planted in both the developed and the developing world
are engineered for resistance to herbicides and resistance to insect pests.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and other opponents outline the
potential risks of modern biotechnology and its effects on human health to include: new
allergens in the food supply, antibiotic resistance, and production of new toxins,
concentration of toxic metals, and the enhancement of the environment for toxic fungi.
Potential environmental risks cited by opponents of biotechnology include possible gene
transfer to wild or weedy relatives and increased weediness, change in herbicide use
patterns, squandering of valuable pest susceptibility genes, poisoned wildlife, creation of

new or worse viruses, and other, so far unknown harms (UCS, 1999).

2.3.1 Environmental Impact of Bioengineered Food Innovations

Wafula (1999) found that increased agricultural yields through high input
chemicals are no longer sustainable in Kenya and other African countries due to high
inputs costs and potentially serious environmental hazards posed by agro chemicals.
While modern biotechnology might provide an alternative production technology, Wafula
(1993) stresses the importance of instituting appropriate biosafety regulations in Afiica.
According to Wafula (1993), the risks associated with modern biotechnology are
potentially high when viewed in an ecological and human health context. However
several risk assessment studies conducted in most developed countries have led to the
formulation of laws and regulations necessary to protect the environment and human

health (Wafula, 1993). It is estimated that scientists worldwide have experimentally

21

modified nearly 100 plant species (Wambugu, 2001). In most developing countries,
including Kenya, Warnbugu (2001) claims the results of modern biotechnology have
been slow to reach farmers due to environmental and food safety concerns. Warnbugu
(2001) explains that food safety and environmental concerns have led the Kenyan
government to introduce stringent biotechnology regulatory procedures.

Blanchfield’s (2004) hypothesis is that modern biotechnology has the potential to
improve agricultural performance (yields) and confer environmental benefits by reducing
labor intensity and input costs of agricultural production. Environmental benefits of
modern biotechnology outlined by Blanchfield (2004), Hosain et al. (2002), DeVries and
Toenniessen (2001) include those to the soil because of "no-till" farming practices,
reduced use of pesticides and herbicides, and the ability to grow crops in previously
inhospitable environments (e.g., via increased ability of plants to grow in conditions of
drought, high soil salinity and extremes). The ability to produce crops in these
environments will improve poor countries’ ability feed themselves at a reduced
environmental cost. Lappe and Bailey (1998) contend that two-fifths of the world’s
current food production already comes from 17% of land under irrigation. Therefore,
high precision agriculture ought to be enough to reduce land needs dramatically without
necessarily turning to modern agricultural biotechnology. Lappe and Bailey (1998)
continue to argue that, from an environmental perspective, herbicide resistance conferred
to crops may carry a unique downside in the sense that toxic amounts of a given herbicide
may be over sprayed on the protected crop resulting in high doses of pesticide residues in
edible portions of the crop. While it may be considered an environmentally benevolent

action, Lappe and Bailey (1998) contend that less tilling leads to more perennial weeds

22

which may require more herbicides, a cycle the authors believe is the result of a 250
million pounds increase in herbicide usage in the last decade (Lappe and Bailey, 1998).
According Lappe and Bailey, “the UN blames poor resource management for much of the

world’s food woes” (Lappe and Bailey, 1998, p. 88).

2.3.2 Modern Biotechnology and Third World Food Security

Modern biotechnology is important in the overall food production in most
developing countries for the simple reason that the masses do not have enough to eat
(Wambugu, 2001). The concerns of food availability and nutritional intake are much
greater in lesser-developed countries (LDCs) compared to the more developed countries
(e.g., United States, Europe, and Japan) (Curtis et al. 2004). According to Warnbugu
(2001), recent droughts in parts of Africa coupled with large disparities in crop yields
between developed and developing countries call for an intervening technology. In
maize, for example, the world average yield per hectare is 4 tons compared to 1.6 tons in
Kenya (Wambugu, 2001). In other crops such as banana, yields are said to be declining in
the face of a rapidly increasing population. It is against this background that Warnbugu
(2001) argues for the need to adopt modern biotechnology in developing countries in
order to increase production of basic staple crops.

During the 1993 Afiican Regional Conference for International Corporation on
Safety of Biotechnology, Professor Chetsanga from the Biotechnology Research Institute
in Zimbabwe mentioned that “the immediate focus of biotechnology in Africa should be
the production of adequate quantities of food crops which can be sold at affordable

prices.” The application of biotechnology according Chetsanga (1993) should aim at this

23

yardstick otherwise the peasant population will not benefit from the advent of modern
biotechnology

Lappe and Bailey (1998) argue that, to date, very few genuine increases in
productivity (yield) can be attributed to bioengineered food innovations. The new
bioengineered food innovations according to Lappe and Bailey (1998) can only boast of
making agricultural products more “consumer friendly.” Lappe and Bailey (1998) further
explain that, in fact, many of the genetically engineered product features are aesthetic
inventions simply geared towards increased corporate profits and dominance but not
necessarily increased world food supply, as argued by proponents. For example, changes
in ripening or shipping characteristics of crop plants for example increased ripening and
enhanced aroma in tomatoes, prolonged shelf life in bell peppers and increased sugar
content in peas are all geared towards enhancing consumer acceptance (Lappe and
Bailey, 1998). Lappe and Bailey believe that to date, bioengineered food innovations can
only boast of aesthetic contributions to crops and not increased production.

In Latin America and other developing countries, the main humanitarian
objectives of third world biotechnology claims to be directed towards improvement of the
nutritional quality of regional staples to fight malnutrition (Goldstein, 1995). Goldstein
(1995) argues that there is no such thing as a Latin American food problem, but rather a
problem of hunger. Goldstein (1995) further explains that there is no relationship
between food production and food security. Goldstein (1995) believes the latter is a
political problem and will not be solved by technological means. In conclusion, Goldstein

(1995) argues while technical changes in agriculture can increase food output or improve

24

food quality in a given country, technical changes by themselves do not necessitate the
elimination of hunger in any particular country.

Many researchers, including Lappe and Bailey (1998) and Goldstein (1995),
believe that precision agriculture and a fairer distribution of food should be more than
adequate to secure the world’s food system. However, Hoban (2003) and Blanchfield
(2004) argue that "world hunger” is a complex phenomenon that involves a combination
of both quantity and quality attributes of food. For that reason, the authors argue that
production technologies must focus on ensuring the necessary micronutrients required for
keeping a vast number of people alive and healthy. For instance, Blanchfield (2004)
explains that research underway at the University of Arkansas and Tulane University to
remove allergens or toxic components in peanuts and prawns, in order to produce GM
non allergenic products, are steps towards ensuring world food security. Similarly,
research efforts under way in Japan to produce bioengineered non-allergenic rice and also
lngo Potrykus's EU research project (partly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation) with
the aim of increasing “Vitamin A” content in rice are all geared towards increasing not
only quantity but also the nutritional components of rice (Blanchfield, 2004). It has been
found that rice rich in “Vitamin A” has the potential of preventing blindness among
children in Southeast Asia and possibly other developing countries (Blanchfield, 2004).

According to Blanchfield (2004), the announcement in September 2003 by Edgar
Cahoon and his team at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Missouri that by
inserting a gene extracted from barley into a common type of field corn, they have
created a strain that grows with six times the usual amount of vitamin E, a powerful

antioxidant, signifies prospects for improved processing characteristics. The potential

25

benefits of Cahoon’s research, according to Blanchfield (2004), are improved post
harvest characteristics in corn that will result in reduced waste and thus enhanced
quantity and quality attributes. In effect, this biotechnology intervention may translate
into lower food costs to the consumer (Blanchfield, 2004). In Africa and most of Latin
America where banana and plantain constitute a substantial portion of the staple diet,
Blanchfield (2004) argues that the development of fungal and disease resistant GM
varieties of the Cavendish dessert banana has the potential of increasing productivity and
securing the food system in these parts of the world. Current plantain and banana
varieties in Afiica, South America and Asia are prone to endemic diseases that have
adverse consequences for long run species loss and food security (Blanchfield, 2004). For
example, farmers in Kenya and most of Afiica currently lose an estimated 40% of their
maize crops to insect pests (maize stem borer) (Wambugu, 2001). In addition,
subsistence growers of banana in Kenya often suffer 100% loss of their harvest to the
black sigatoka. Wambugu and others contend that a GM variety resistant to this disease
could save the harvests.

Lappe and Bailey (1998) argue that even though insect and drought resistant
technologies hold great promises for food production, these particular objectives are
simply not aggressively pursued or have currently been side lined by most biotechnology
firms. For example, in crops such as cassava and sweet potatoes, only 7% of farmers in
Kenya have access to improved planting materials (Wambugu, 2001). It is estimated that
a combination of modern biotechnologies such as tissue culture and effective distribution

could raise the number to well over 50% (Wambugu, 2001).

26

Both staunch proponents and opponents of modern biotechnology appear to agree
that developing staple crops such as corn, cassava, banana and wheat lines to be insect
and drought tolerant holds potential advantages for agriculture, and, if successful,
promise much higher yields under a variety of conditions (Lappe and Bailey, 1998; and

Blanchfield, 2004).

2.3.3 Modern Biotechnology and the Third World

Osei (2003) asserts that many organizations including the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations believe modern biotechnology will not necessarily
contribute to world food security. Also, some biotechnology researchers believe the
biotechnology industry has the potential to deepen economic inequalities inherent in the
global food trading system by reducing access and affordability to low income consumers
(Osei, 2003; Lappe and Bailey, 1998). In its current application, it is argued that
bioengineered food innovations target the needs of developed country farmers and
consumers and ignore those of developing countries (Mugabe, 2004; Lappe and Bailey,
1998). The reason for this assertion is the devotion of modern biotechnologies to
herbicide tolerance in crops such as soybeans, cotton and maize rather than addressing
issues such as drought and virus tolerance of tropical plant species (Mugabe, 2004).

Even though many researchers agree that genetically modified crops are mostly
associated with high-input industrial economies, Heusing and English (2004) claim
farmers in the developing countries, particularly Asia, are rapidly adopting this new
technology. Heusing and English (2004) assert that nearly one third of all GM crops are
now grown in developing nations. Compared to the industrialized world, Heusing and

English (2004) believe that developing nations have more to gain from genetically

27

. modified crops because yield constraints such as insects are often far more crippling in
poorer countries than in the industrial world. Heusing and English (2004) add that in
those places where high percentages of the population are farmers and crop productivity
is low, the ramifications of crop pest, weed, and disease control are profound. Whether
modern biotechnology contributes significantly to food security in developing countries
or is compatible with sustainable agriculture, and if so, in what ways, provokes much
controversy among researchers and sustainable agriculture advocates (Gold, 1999).
Comparing the production techniques of modern biotechnology to the those of the
Green Revolution, Lappe and Bailey (1998) argue that, unlike the Green Revolution that
required judicious conventional breeding techniques to transfer groups of closely linked
desirable genes into crops, the key challenges posed to genetically engineered
crops/modem biotechnology is whether or not similar advances associated with the Green
Revolution could prove attainable through the systematic transfer of single genes as is the
case in modern biotechnology (Lappe and Bailey, 1998, p.15). Although many research
institutions and international organizations tout bioengineered crops as promising a
second Green Revolution, Lappe and Bailey (1998) believe those who control the
technology appear less interested in meeting long term world food security. Rather the
focus of most biotechnology corporations, according to Lappe and Bailey (1998), is on

obtaining short term solutions.

2.3.4 Third World and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Technology

It is not certain how socio-cultural and economic characteristics of producers in
developing countries will impact acceptability and applications of the Bt technology.

Although Bt technology may seem benevolent (in terms of protecting the environment

28

through reduced agricultural intensity and pesticide application), a laboratory study by
researchers in Iowa State and Cornell University found possible links between pollen
from Bt corn canied by wind onto milkweed, and a potential threat to Monarch butterfly
larvae (Sanchez, 2002).

Lappe and Bailey (1998) summarize their concerns about Bt technology by
stating that historically, technological inventions are riddled with examples of premature
commercialization and often belated testing and evaluation. According to Lappe and
Bailey (1998), many potential hidden pitfalls plague the intense race to establish
corporate dominance in any new field. For instance, the development of silicon breast
implants, the Dalkon shield and the Bjork-Shelley heart valve according to these authors
all proceeded with minimal or no long-term safety testing. Lappe and Bailey (1998)
caution that researchers pushing for Bt technology may be charting a similar course in
their programming of crops to express a bacteria toxin from species of Bacillus
thuringiensis. This bacterium believed to occupy a relatively small niche among soil
microorganisms has the potential to proliferate its genes in plants and most likely create
evolutionary problems for humans (Lappe and Bailey, 1998).

A study by Aemi (2002) to determine public attitudes towards modern
agricultural biotechnologies revealed that politicians in South Africa generally expect
agricultural biotechnology to address agricultural nutritional problems. Aemi (2002) also
found that, “while most respondents do not consider genetically modified food as a health
risk for consumers and expect agricultural biotechnology to make contributions to future

food security in Africa, they are concerned about sustainability of Bt crops and the proper

29

implementation of biosafety regulations. Moreover, most respondents doubt that such
crops would be appropriate for resource-poor-fanners” (Aemi, 2002, p. 4).

J uma and Mugabe (1996) postulates that the anticipated impact of biotechnology
is largely based on the experiences of the Green Revolution. Juma and Mugabe (1996)
also believes that, unlike the Green Revolution, the emerging techniques associated with
agricultural biotechnologies are more suitable for diverse and decentralized production.
When issues of equity are considered, however, Juma and Mugabe (1996) contends that
what matters is not only technical characteristics, but also forms of social organization.
Because it remains partly unclear how bioengineered food innovations such as Bt
technologies may affect agricultural productivity in Afiica, Juma and Mugabe (1996)
suggests that policy research into emerging issues should first and foremost anticipate
potential contributions and plan the supply of relevant skills. Secondly, it is important to
formulate long-term policies which will not only shape the development and applications
of these technologies but also address related forms of social reorganization (Juma and

Mugabe, 1996).

2.4 Perceptions of Biotechnology in Developed and Developing Countries

Numerous studies on global perceptions of bioengineered food innovations
indicate that indigenous perceptions differ considerably from one country and continent
to the other. For instance, a study by Horban (2003), “Public Perceptions and
Understanding of Agricultural Biotechnology,” revealed that consumers from different
parts of the world have very different perceptions and understandings of agricultural

biotechnology. In essence, perceptions of bioengineered food innovations are more or

30

less entrenched in the socio-cultural, economic, religious and psychological background
of citizens of a particular country.

Hosain et al. (2002) found that public perceptions of biotechnology may have
multiple dimensions and are likely to be influenced by multiple forces, preferences, and
events. Furthermore, positive benefits resulting from improved nutrition and
environmental benefits such as those resulting from minimal fertilizer and pesticide use
are likely to encourage public acceptance of biotechnology (Hosain et al. 2002). In spite
of positive attributes claimed to be associated with modern biotechnology, research
findings by Phillip Aemi, who studied “public attitudes towards agricultural
biotechnology in South Africa, Mexico and the Philippines,” indicate that most people in
developing countries are skeptical about the potential benefits of bioengineered food
innovations (Aemi, 2001). Aemi’s (2001) study on public perceptions of biotechnology
in developing countries reveals that drought is by far the most important agricultural
problem among the public in South Africa, Mexico and the Philippines.

Much as it is easy to assume developing countries will perceive bioengineered
food innovations positively due to acclaimed potential to increase productivity, relieve
pressure on natural resources and stimulate economic growth, recent studies have proven
that there is some degree of resentment towards this technology (Aemi, 2001). Aemi’s
(2002) study on stakeholder perceptions in the Philippines and Mexico confirmed that
factual knowledge, world view, stakeholder interest and public perceptions seem to shape
political decisions on adoption of agricultural food innovations in developing countries.

While positive attributes of modern agricultural biotechnology are likely to

generate positive public perceptions. Hosain et al. (2002) assert that perceived risks to

31

humans and the environment might influence public perceptions and acceptance of
bioengineered food innovations. It is a widely accepted view that socio-economic,
political, cultural and moral/ethical attributes greatly affect public perceptions and
acceptance of bioengineered food innovations. Hosain et al. (2002) stated that, besides
perceived risks, factors such as public confidence in government, the scientific
community, and biotechnology companies also influence public perceptions and attitudes

towards an emerging technology.

2.5 Information Sources and Perceptions of Biotechnology

Chetsanga (1993) asserts that one of the most serious constraints impeding
Afiica’s development is lack of information on virtually all spheres of human activity and
development. Chetsanga (1993) further noted that in Africa it is particularly difficult to
get data on most issues, including biotechnology. While provision and availability of
relevant information are likely to influence attitudes and perceptions, Kamaldeen and
Powell (2000) found that the social context in which information is received is just as
likely to determine public perceptions as the content of the information itself. The nature
of the information exchange relationship between a pair of individuals determines the
conditions under which a source will or will not transmit the innovation to the receiver
and the effect of such a transfer (Rogers, 2003). When dealing with issues pertaining to
bioengineered food innovations, Aemi (2002) believes that it is difficult for most people
to count on their own knowledge and experiences. For this reason, Rogers (2003)
believes interpersonal channels are more effective in persuading an individual to accept a

new idea, especially if the interpersonal channels link two or more individuals with

32

similar socioeconomics status, education, or other important attributes. Interpersonal
channels involve face-to-face exchange between two or more individuals. While
interpersonal channels may prove most effective in winning the trust of potential adopters
of biotechnology, Rogers (2003) explains that mass media channels are usually the most
rapid and efficient means of informing a large audience of potential adopters about the
existence of an innovation and also to create awareness-knowledge. Examples of mass
media channels may include radio, television, newspaper, etc., which enable one or a few
individuals to reach an audience of many. Aemi (2002) adds to Rogers’ vieWpoint by
asserting that it is commonplace for people to rely on information distributed either
through the mass media, by representatives from industry, government, public interest
groups or academia. Information provided by the media, confidence in governmental
safeguards, cultural and religious preferences significantly influence public perceptions

of bioengineered food innovations (Hoban, 1999).

2.5.1 Trust in Information Sources and Perceptions Biotechnology

Credibility and trust in information sources and government regulators are listed
by Kamaldeen and Powell (2000) as likely factors that significantly impact public
perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. In explaining perceptions and attitudes
leading to public opposition of modern agricultural biotechnology in South Africa,
Mexico and the Philippines, Aemi (2002) contends that opposition to modern
biotechnology is more complex than is viewed by most natural scientists. At the
fundamental level, all risk according to Wolf and Peterson (2000) is perceived no matter
the gravity of the risk. Wolf and Peterson (2000) further claim that lack of knowledge,

coupled with limited public appreciation of technology, causes risk perception to be

33

skewed by emotive attributes of the risk. According to Aemi (2002), most natural
scientists believe information provided through traditional educational systems in the area
of science is sufficient to overcome resistance to modern biotechnologies and warrant
acceptance of the technology. Based on socially communicated value, social status and
professional affiliations, a person regards particular sources of information to be more
trustworthy than others” (Aemi, 2002, p.14). Rogers (2003) used results of diffusion
investigations to show that most individuals do not evaluate an innovation on the basis of
scientific studies of its consequences or risks. While objective evaluations of scientific
studies are not entirely irrelevant, especially to the very first individual who. adopts,
Rogers (2003) asserts that most people depend mainly upon a subjective evaluation of an
innovation that is conveyed to them from other individuals like themselves who have
already adopted the innovation. The dependence on the experience of near peers suggests
that the heart of the diffusion process consists of the modeling and imitation by potential
adopters of their network partners who have previously adopted (Roger, 2003).

Dittus and Hillers (1993) found that in the US and UK, perceptions of trust in
government regulation and industry, regarding either pesticides or products of
agricultural biotechnology, are the strongest predictors of public support. To establish a
strong and sustainable information exchange relationship, Rogers (2003) suggests that the
change agent (government regulators, researchers, etc.) must be perceived as credible,
competent, and trustworthy because the public usually accept the agents before accepting
an innovation that is being promoted. Wolf and Peterson (2000) assert that knowledge
and trust are major attributes of risk perceptions that will determine acceptance of

agricultural biotechnology. Risk researchers are thus increasingly concluding that public

34

. Opposition to higher technologies is a matter of trust in institutions and world view rather
than a lack of understanding of science (Aemi, 2002, p. 9). According to Kamaldeen and
Powell (2000), people either trust that bioengineered food innovations, including
pesticides, are adequately regulated or they do not. While those with low trust have the
highest concerns about the possible risks, Kamaldeen and Powell (2000) believe that
those with the highest trust perceive greater benefits from both products. Van
Ravenswaay (1995) concluded that trust in government and industry may be a more
important influence on risk perception than the inherent safety or danger of a particular
agrochemical or biotechnological innovation.

Juma and Mugabe ( 1996) expresses grave concern about a growing relationship
currently existent between corporations involved in bioengineered food innovations and
universities and the potential impact of these relationships on global public perceptions.
According to J uma and Mugabe(l996), a recent study of public perceptions of
biotechnology in the US indicates that 19% of the people will definitely believe
university statements about the risks of bioengineered food innovations. However, only
4% believe the actual company making the product. Such perceptions, according to Juma
and Mugabe (1996), do not take into account the fact that university scientists have
become increasingly linked to industry so that it may be fairly accurate to predict that
their views and perceptions on risk converge with those of industry. Aemi (2002) found
that science is trusted as long as it is generally perceived to be a disinterested authority
that seeks truth for the sake of truth. It thus follows that if science is perceived as
detached from the common interest and associated with private interest, it runs the risk of

losing public trust, even if excellent research results are produced (Aemi, 2002, p. 9).

35

2.6 Summary

This chapter draws on four areas of literature: 1) historical foundations of
bioengineered food innovations, 2) opposing views on bioengineered food innovations 3)
perceptions of bioengineered food innovations in developed and developing countries,
and 4) information sources used in establishing perceptions of bioengineered food
innovations in developed and developing countries. Chapter three presents the

methodology used in conducting the study.

36

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

3.1 Chapter Preview

The previous chapters outlined the scope of this study, the relationship of the
investigation to existing research and the conceptual framework (see page 39) used in the
study. This chapter explores the survey procedure and the methodology used in collecting
the data used in the study. The following specific topics are discussed in this chapter: 1)
research design; 2) population and sample; 3) data collection; 4) research questions; 5)
instrument validity and reliability; 6) instrumentation; 7) data analysis; and 8) limitations

of the study.

3.2 Research Design
This study uses a descriptive methodology, correlation design, and probit and

logit models to measure students’ perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. The
self-selected population for this census study is the lst through 4"1 year undergraduate
agricultural science students from Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

Technology (KNU ST).

3.3 Population
The study population was composed of N = 601 agricultural science students

from Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST). The
entire population was selected for the study. Three hundred and one (n = 301)

questionnaires were completed. Sixty nine (69) respondents were in their 1St year, 60

37

were in the 2nd year, 96 were 3rd year and 76 were 4th year students. More than three-

quarters (77%) of respondents were male, and less than one-quarter (23%) were female.

3.4 Instrument Design
3.4.] Design

The instrument included ten constructs, with a total of 76 questions measuring
students’ self perceived knowledge, and general perceptions of bioengineered food
innovation issues as reported by government and non-govemmental or not-for-profit
agencies, mass media, biotechnology industries and academic institutions.

Gaskell et al. (1998) argue in favor of using the term perception in this type of
study because they claim most obvious alternatives appear to be unsatisfactory. For
example, these authors believe possible alternatives, such as “opinion,” have the
connotations of being associated with political opinion polling while attitude has
connotations of exclusive interest in personal disposition (Gaskell et al. 998). Similarly, it
is argued by Gaskell et al. (1998) that the term “acceptance” has connotations associated
with the public relations industry. The authors argue that “at best, acceptance is a
euphemism for a mixed bag of people’s enthusiasm, discontent, worries, imaginations,
fears, anticipations and resistance” (Gaskell et al. 1998, p. 10). The term perception is
thus endorsed due to its alleged neutrality (Gaskell et al. 1998).

A four-point Likert-scale ranging from one (1), implying an extreme end of the
scale (“very positive”) through four (4) another extreme end (“very negative”) was
provided throughout the questionnaire. The four-point scale gave respondents an
opportunity to rate the degree to which each variable influences their perceptions

regarding bioengineered food innovation issues.

38

Although the instrument does not include a knowledge section, respondents were
asked to rate their level of knowledge regarding bioengineered food innovations based on
information sources used in acquiring knowledge of the subject, experiences and previous
course work.

For each section of the four-point Likert scale provided, a “don’t know” option
was intentionally omitted as a response option. According to StatPac (2004), questions
that exclude the “don't know” option produce a greater volume of accurate data.
Furthermore, StatPac (2004) claims there is generally no difference in response rate
depending on the inclusion or exclusion of the “don't know” option. StatPack (2004)
further suggests that while many researchers advocate including a “don‘t know” response
category when there is a possibility that the respondents may not know the answer to a
question, it is more advantageous to use this option for factual questions and not for

attitude/perception questions such as those presented in this study.

3.5.2 Content

The instrument included a brief description on the front cover with directions for
completion. Items included in the questionnaire were modified slightly from a similar
survey questionnaire used by Texas A & M researchers Wingenbach, Rutherford and
Dansford (2004). Wingenbach et al.’s research on “Selected College Students’
Perceptions and Attitudes of Biotechnology Issues Reported by the Mass Media” was
used to validate and establish reliability of the instrument.

All questions were carefully worded to reflect objectivity in the research process,
and also to avoid biasing respondents. A four—point Likert scale was provided throughout

the survey to help respondents rate their responses. The ten sections of the instrument

39

used to quantify students’ responses embraced items on the following issues: 1) optimism
or pessimism about biotechnology in the context of selected activities and issues; 2)
degree to which selected sources are used to gain information on bioengineered food
innovations; 3) frequency with which selected sources report information on
biotechnology; 4) extent to which selected experiences (socio-cultural and economic) are
used to establish perceptions about bioengineered food innovations; 5) future
CXpectations about the contributions of bioengineered food innovations to society in
terms of ensuring safe food systems and protecting the environment; 6) level of
importance placed on investigating claims made about biotechnology by different
organizations, individuals, and research institutions; 7) importance to respondent of
investigating statements and claims about biotechnology made by different groups and
individuals; 8) confidence in statements about bioengineered food innovations made by
different institutions, including government; 9) confidence in government legislation to
regulate biotechnology; and 10) demographic characteristics.

All questions were closed and ordinal. By definition, an ordinal scale represents
“an order that can be imposed on the values of a variable in a subject, where the order
ranges from the highest value (such as "very interested") to the lowest value (such as "not
at all interested") (OERL, 2004).

The demographic questions consisted of gender, age and education. Self
perceived knowledge under demographic item 75 had a scale similar to that of sections 6
and 8. The rating scales used in the instrument corresponding to each of the sections
listed above including a modified version of the four point-scale used in data analysis is

presented in Table l.

40

Table 1: Regular and Modified Rating Scales Used in Survey Instrument

 

 

 

 

 

Sections of Rating Scale
the 1 2 3 4
Instrument 1475 1.75-2.5 2.5-3.25 3.25.4
1 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
Negative Negative Positive Positive
2, 3 & 4 Never Occasionally Often Always
Not At All Fairly Very
5 & 7 Important Important Important Important
9 Very Low Low High Very High
6, 8 & Strongly . Strongly
10,75 Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
3.5.3 Validity

Five subject matter specialists (two from KNU ST, one from Texas A&M and two
from MSU) reviewed the instrument for face and content validity. Content validity is the
degree to which a test or instrument content is tied to the instructional domain it intends
to measure (OERL, 2004). According to StatPac (2004), a question’s wording can be
extremely important. In fact, many investigators have confirmed that slight changes in the
way questions are worded can have a significant impact on how people respond, to the
extent that minor changes in question wording can produce more than a 25 percent

difference in people’s opinions StatPac (2004).

3.5.4 Reliability

Variables derived from test instruments are declared reliable only when they
produce replicable and stable responses over repeated administration under which they
are likely to be used (Santos, 1999). Wingenbach et a1. (2004) used the original version of

the survey instrument in a similar study conducted in 11 land-grant universities from ten

41

. states in the United States. In the modified survey instrument used in this study, an
additional section was added to account for country specific issues such as confidence in
the Ghanaian govemment’s role in addressing modern biotechnology issues (i.e. patents,
biosafety, overall research support for biotechnology, etc.). When the instrument
reliability was recalculated using SPSS, the Cronbach's alpha for 183 cases and 77 items
was 0.8880. According to the UCLA Academic Technology Services (2005), reliability
coefficients of 0.80 or higher are considered acceptable in most social science

applications.

3.6 Data Collection

Prior to data collection, a formal electronic application was submitted to the
Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
(Appendix A). Upon UCHRIS approval of the research on May 5, 2004, the
questionnaire was electronically sent to Ghana and printed. The cost of printing and
mailing back to the United States was paid by the researcher through Western Union
money transfer. Prior to printing the final instrument, a series of emails and telephone
correspondence was initiated to coordinate the final stage of instrument design and data
collection protocol. A letter requesting approval of the study (Appendix B) and the
sample questionnaire (Appendix C) were sent to the Dean of Agriculture, KNUST via
fax, and a hard copy was sent via post mail. Upon the Dean’s approval, a letter of
encouragement from the dean (Appendix D) seeking students’ cooperation with the study
was attached to each questionnaire and distributed to all classes. Data collection took

approximately two weeks, from May 12-27, 2004.

42

The instruments were printed in four different colors (white, blue, cream, and
yellow), with each color representing a particular year group. Instrument coloring was
done for easy tracking and grouping of each year group. Coloring also enhanced visual

attractiveness of the instruments.

3.7 Data Analysis Procedure

Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 11.5 and STATA 8.0 were
used to analyze the data. All questionnaires received were numbered and grouped into
each respective year group. After all the data were entered, the researcher cross checked
to be sure all data were properly entered. Descriptive statistics (means, standard
deviations, chi-squares and Pearson’s p-value) were obtained using SPSS.

For the purpose of performing cross tabulations of self perceived knowledge
aligned with all variables in the first nine sections of the instrument, self perceived
knowledge treated as the dependent variable was grouped into two categories: (1)
respondents who perceived their knowledge of bioengineered food innovations as low
(Very Low + Low) and (2) respondents who perceived their knowledge of bioengineered
food innovations as high (High + Very High). All self perceived “Low” knowledge
responses were assigned a code of (O), and all “High” self perceived knowledge
responses were assigned a cod of (1 ). The knowledge variable was coded to allow for
cross tabulations with other variables to determine whether these variables had any
significant influence on a respondents’ self perceived knowledge of the subject.

A Probit and Logit model was generated using STATA 8.0 to determine which
information sources significantly impacted respondents’ self perceived knowledge of

bioengineered food innovations. Dummy variables similar to those created for the cross

43

tabulations were created for variables in sections two, three and four of the questionnaire
(Appendix C). Any information source that was “Never” used to establish knowledge
about bioengineered food innovations was coded 0, and all other sources
(“Occasionally,” “Often” or “Always”) used were assigned a code = 1. Both Probit and
Logit models were used in this study to: I) confirm sources of information that were
significant (in influencing self perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations)
from the cross tabulations; 2) to predict respondents’ level of knowledge based on
information sources used in seeking knowledge of bioengineered food innovations; and
3) to calculate the probability that a respondent will rate his/her self perceived knowledge
as high when a particular information source in used in isolation in seeking knowledge
about bioengineered food innovations.

After generating the Probit model, the STATA function “mfx compute” was used
to generate the probability that each independent variable will contribute to a
respondent’s high self perceived knowledge, all else being equal. Also, the STATA
function “lstat” was used to predict whether a respondent’s self perceived knowledge was
low or high, with knowledge treated as the dependent variable and others treated as

independent variables. This procedure was repeated for the Logit model.

44

3.8 Summary

Research methods for this study of KNUST agricultural science students’
perceptions of bioengineered food innovations have been described. The study population
consisted of 601 agricultural science students. from the Kwame Nkrumah’s University of
Science and Technology, Ghana. Three hundred and one (301) surveys were received, a
response rate of 50%. Statistics used to analyze the data include: frequencies,
percentages, means, standard deviations, cross tabulations, chi-squares, and Probit and
Logit models. Chapter four will present the research findings of Ghana KNU ST students’

perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

45

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

4.1 Chapter Preview

The previous chapters of this thesis outlined the scope of the study (Chapter 1),

the relationship of the investigation to existing research and the conceptual framework

used in the study (Chapter 2), and a research design and methodology for the study

(Chapter 3). This chapter reports the results of the study. The data presented in this

chapter fulfill the following research objectives:

1.

To describe the demographic composition of agricultural science students in
KNUST.
To describe current perceptions of bioengineered food innovations amongst

KNUST agricultural science students.

. To determine KNUST students’ perceptions regarding government efforts in

instituting appropriate frameworks aimed at facilitating adoption and
implementation of bioengineered food innovations in Ghana.
To determine sources of information used by KNUST students in establishing

their knowledge and perceptions regarding bioengineered food innovations.

. To describe how different sources of information influence respondents’ self

perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations.

Analysis of the survey data was completed using the Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.5 and STATA (Statistical Data Analysis) version 8.0.

The findings presented are correlated with all five objectives used to guide the study.

46

4.2 OBJECTIVE 1: To Describe the Demographic Composition of Agricultural

Science Students in KNUST.

Description of Demographic Composition of KN US T Agricultural Science Students

Demographic data collected from respondents were: age, sex and current year in
college and specific discipline studied at the time of the study.

Respondents were 22.70% female (n = 64) and 77.30% male (11 = 218). Of all
respondents, 3.08% (n = 9) were ages 19 years or less, 79.12% (11 = 231) were between
ages 20 and 24 and 17.81% (n = 52) were 25 and above. With regard to year in college,
first year students represented 22.45% (n = 66) of respondents, second year 19.73% (n =
58), third year 32.31% (n = 95) and fourth/final year 25.51% (n = 75). Table 2 provides a
summary of the various disciplines and the year groups within the KNUST agricultural
science program .

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Demographics

 

Variable n Percentage (%)

Disciplines (N = 301)

Animal Science 16 5.32
Crop Science 32 10.63
Agric Economics 15 4.98
Horticulture 8 2.66
Mechanization 5 l .66
General Agric 225 74.75
Year Group (N = 294)

lst Year 66 22.45
2nd Year 58 19.73
3rd Year 95 32.31
4th Year 75 25.51

 

47

4.3 OBJECTIVE 2: To Describe Current Perceptions of Bioengineered Food

Innovations Amongst KNUST Agricultural Science Students

Description of Current Perceptions of Bioengineered Food Innovations among KN US T

Agricultural Science Students

4.3.1 Effect of Biotechnology on Selected Activities

Respondents were asked to rate, based on a four point Likert-scale, the extent to
which they believe bioengineered food innovations would affect commercial farming, the
environment, fish and wildlife, food production, small scale farming, world hunger and
personal health. From Table 1 the rating scale is as follows: 1-1.75 = very negative, 1.75-
2.5 = somewhat negative, 2.5-3.25 = somewhat positive and 325—4 = very positive. Table
3 provides summary statistics of percentage responses, means and standard deviations.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Impact of Bioengineered Food Innovations

 

 

 

Percent

, a fig Egg g; E25 M SD
Variable/Scale ;> 530 E g0 E 8 ;> 8
N = 301 Z v02 2 g o. o.
Food Production 293 .7 3.8 31 4 64.2 3.59 .60
Commercial Farming 296 1 7 3.7 29.7 64.9 3.58 .65
World Hunger 292 1.4 6.5 29.1 63.0 3.54 .68
The Environment 293 3.8 19.1 42.3 34.8 3.08 .83
Small Scale Farms 283 5.7 18.0 44.2 32.2 3.03 .85
Your Health 286 5.9 20.6 41.3 32.2 3.00 .88
Fish and Wildlife 289 6.2 17.3 52.6 23.9 2.94 .81

 

48

Summary statistics outlined in Table 3 indicate that 90% to 95% of all
respondents recorded a mean between 3.50 to 3.60 and SD between 0.6 to 0.7 with
respect to food production, commercial farming and world hunger. This implies that a
greater majority of respondents believe bioengineered food innovations will have a
somewhat positive to very positive effect on food production, commercial farming and
world hunger. On the other hand, less than 10% of all respondents believe bioengineered
food innovations would have a somewhat negative to very negative effect on food
production, commercial farming and world hunger.

An average of 74% of respondents said biotechnology would have a somewhat
positive impact on the enviromnent, small scale farms, personal health, fish and wildlife.
Also, respondents believe biotechnology will have a more positive effect on food
production than commercial farming, world hunger, environment, small scale farms,
personal health and fish & wildlife, in that order. Relatively small standard deviations
associated with food production, commercial farming and world hunger indicate

respondents have concurring views on these particular issues.

4.3.2 Importance of Biotechnology Research Regarding Selected Activities

Table 4 represents the level of importance respondents believe should be placed
on bioengineered food innovations research regarding seven selected issues. Following
the rating scale on Table 1, the scale in Table 4 is modified as follows: 1-1.75 = Not At
All Important, 1.75-2.5 = Fairly Important, 2.5-3.25 = Important and 3.25-4 = Very
Important. Table 4 thus provides, in decreasing order of “rating, summary statistics of

percentage responses, means and standard deviations.

49

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of the Importance of Bioengineered Food Innovations

 

 

 

Research
Percent
i E o—r w H
a a? '3 8 8 953 M SD
Variable/Scale .5 o. If. a. o. > 8.
N = 301 z E E E. E.
Safer Food 295 1.36 5.76 18.98 73.90 _ 3.65 0.65
Benefits To The
Environment 294 1.02 10.88 29.59 58.50 3.46 0.73
Control Of Released Genes 292 1.71 10.27 30.48 57.53 3.44 0.75
Added Nutritional Value
To Food 296 1.69 10.14 31.08 57.09 3.44 0.74
Reduction Of Pesticides 295 2.03 12.20 30.85 54.92 3.39 0.78
Risk Compared To
Pesticides 293 4.78 13.99 32.42 48.81 3.25 0.87
Harrning The Environment 292 13.36 11.99 16.78 57.88 3.19 1.10

 

The findings from Table 4 indicate that approximately 85% to 95% of all
respondents recorded means ranging from 3.39 to 3.65 with SD 0.65 to 0.78 on “Safer
Food,” “Benefit to the Environment” and “Control of Released Genes into the
Environment.” This implies 85% to 95% of all respondents believe it is either
“Important” or “Very Important” that biotechnology research focus on “Safer Food,”
“Benefit To the Environment,” “Control Of Released Genes Into The Environment,”
“Added Nutritional Value To Food” and “Reduction Of Pesticides.” On the other hand,
less than 15% of respondents believe bioengineered food innovations research regarding

the above issues is “Not At All Important” or just “Fairly Important.”

50

Approximately 75% to 80% of respondents believe it is either ‘Important” or
“Very Important” that bioengineered food innovations research focus on “Risk Compared
To Pesticides” and “Harrning The Environment.” Roughly 15% to 20% of respondents
think it is either not “Important” or just “Fairly Important” that bioengineered food
innovations research focus on “Risk Compared to Pesticides” and “Harming the
Environment.”

In order of decreasing importance, respondents believe bioengineered food
innovations research should focus first and foremost on “Safer Food,” followed by
“Benefit To the Environment,” “Control Of Released Genes Into The Environment,”
“Added Nutritional Value To Food,” “Reduction Of Pesticides,” and “Risk Compared
To Pesticides” and least on “Harrning The Environment.” The relatively high standard
deviations (0.87 andl . 10) and varying means associated with “Risk Compared To
Pesticides” and “Harming The Environment” indicate that respondents had very

divergent views on these two issues.

4.3.3 Confidence in Statements Made about Bioengineered Food Innovations

Respondents inTable 5 were asked how much confidence they placed in
statements about bioengineered food innovations made by spokespersons from selected
organizations, groups and individuals (Table 5). A four point Likert—Scale of the form: 1-
1.75 = Very Low, 1.75-2.5 = Low, 2.5-3.25 = High and 3.25 - 4 = Very High was used to
rate respondent confidence levels. Table 5 below presents summary statistics of results in
order of decreasing level of confidence in statements about biotechnology made by

different individuals, groups and organization spokespersons.

51

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Level of Confidence in Statements Made by Difl'erent
Groups about Biotechnology Research

 

 

Percent

n E E0 M SD

— ._I 3 '50 :
Variable/Scale b .3 E t‘
N = 301 é’ 9’
Researchers 295 2 .03 7.46 28.47 62.03 3.51 0.72
Health Professionals 293 3.41 11.60 41.98 43.00 3.25 0.79
Biotechnology
Companies 292 7.19 19.18 46.58 27.05 2.93 0.87
Food Companies 294 6.46 28.91 46.60 18.03 2.76 0.82
Extension Specialists 292 5.14 30.48 50.68 13.70 2.73 0.76
Non-Governmental
Organizations 292 6.16 31.51 47.95 14.38 2.71 0.79
Government Agencies 290 6.55 34.14 43.79 15.52 2.68 0.81
Farm Groups 291 9.62 41.24 41.24 7.90 2.47 0.78
Activist Groups 288 19.10 35.42 36.46 9.03 2.35 0.89
Celebrities/Popular
Stars 292 35.27 34.93 25.00 4.79 1.99 0.89

 

Approximately 90% (mean = 3.51, SD = 0.72) of respondents said they have
“High” to “Very High” confidence in statements made by “Researchers” regarding
bioengineered food innovations. Less that 10% said their confidence level was “Very
Low” to “Low.”

Approximately 65% to 85% (mean = 2.73 to 3.25 with SD = 0.76 to 0.87) ofthe
respondents said they have “High” to “Very High” confidence in statements about

bioengineered food innovations made by Health Professionals,” spokesmen from

52

“Biotechnology Companies,” “Food Companies” and “Extension Specialists” while,
conversely, about 35% to 15% of respondents say their confidence was “Low” to “Very
Low.”

With respect to “Non-Governmental Organizations,” “Government Agencies” and
“Farm Groups,” approximately 50% to 60% (mean = 2.47 to 2.71 and SD = 0.78 to 0.81) .
of the respondents said they had “High” to “Very High” confidence in statements
regarding bioengineered food innovations made by spokesmen from these groups.
Conversely, 40% to 50% said they had “Low” to “Very Low” confidence in statements
made by the spokesmen from the same groups.

Nearly 30% (mean = 2.35, SD = 0.89) of all respondents said they had “High” to
“Very High” confidence in statements about bioengineered food innovations made by
“Celebrities/Popular Stars.” On the other hand, almost 70% said their confidence was
“Low” to “Very Low” when it comes to statements about bioengineered food innovations
made by “Celebrities/Popular Stars.”

On the whole, a majority of respondents said they had more confidence in
statements about bioengineered food innovations made by researchers than by any other
group or organization. Respondents’ confidence was lowest when it came to statements
about bioengineered food innovations made by celebrities/popular stars. Using the
adjusted Likert-scale: 1-1.75 = Very Low, 1.75-2.5 = Low, 2.5-3.25 = High and 3.25-4 =
Very High, it may be concluded that respondents had highly concurrent (“Very High”)
views with respect to statements made by researchers and very different views ranging
from “Low” to “Very High” with respect to statements made by spokesmen from any

other organization.

53

4.3.4 Importance of Investigating Claims made about Bioengineered Food

Innovations

Respondents were asked to rate how important it is for them as future agricultural
industry professionals to investigate claims about bioengineered food innovations made
by selected groups, individuals and organizations.

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Level of Importance Placed on Investigating Statements
Made by Dyfferent Grows Regarding Biotechnology

 

Percent

 

 

fl 2 g >. g g g M SD

, .. t: c r: t: t‘ r:
Variable/Scale ff 8. 2'6 8. 8. g 8.
N = 301 2 E L“ E E. .8.
Researchers 293 2.73 9.22 23.21 64.85 3.50 0.77
Health
Professionals 293 3.07 9.22 32.76 54.95 3.40 0.78
Biotechnology
Companies 291 2.41 12.37 33.68 51.55 3.34 0.79
Food Companies 288 1.74 15.28 38.54 44.44 3.26 0.78
Extension
Specialists 291 2.06 17.87 43.99 36.08 3.14 0.78
Farm groups 288 4.17 18.06 42.71 35.07 3.09 0.83
Government
Agencies 292 3.77 21.92 39.73 34.59 3.05 0.85
Non-Governmental
Organizations 293 2.05 23 .89 41.64 32.42 3.04 0.80
Activist Groups 291 6.53 24.40 31.27 37.80 3.00 0.94
Celebrities/Popular
Stars 292 21.92 30.14 24.32 23.63 2.50 1.08

 

54

Table 6 above shows how a four-point Likert scale of the form 1 = Not At All
Important, 2 = Fairly Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important, was used to obtain
the above results. Nearly 80% to 90% (mean = 3.14 to 3.50, SD = 0.77 to 0.79) of all
respondents contend that it is “Important” to “Very Important” that statements about
bioengineered food innovations made by “Researchers,” “Health Professionals,”
“Biotechnology Companies,” “Food Companies” and “Extension Specialists” be
thoroughly investigated.

Approximately 70% to 79% (mean = 3.0 to 3.09, SD = 0.80 to 0.94) of the
respondents contend that it is “Important” to “Very Important” that statements about
bioengineered food innovations made by “Farm Groups,” “Government Agencies,”
“Non-Governmental Agencies” and “Activist Groups” be thoroughly investigated.

Less than 50% (mean = 2.50, SD = 1.08) of all respondents said that statements
about bioengineered food innovations made by “Celebrities/Popular Stars” should be
investigated. Put differently, more than 50% of all respondents believe statements about
biotechnology made by “Celebrities/Popular Stars” are not worth investigating.

On the whole, even though a majority of respondents attest to having high
confidence in statements about bioengineered food innovations made by “Researchers,”
“Health Professionals,” “Biotechnology Companies,” “Food Companies” and “Extension
Specialists,” as presented in Table 6, they still believe statements from these groups need
to be thoroughly investigated. Respondents’ confidence was lowest with respect to
statements about bioengineered food innovations made by Ghanaian celebrities/popular
stars; however, they believe statements from this particular group warrant very little

investigation.

55

Using the adjusted Likert-scale (1-1 .75 = Not At All Important, 1.75-2.5 = Fairly
Important, 2.5-3.25 = Important and 3.25-4 = Very Important), it may be concluded that
respondents had highly convergent views ranging from “Important” to “Very Important.”
This is reflected in the small differences in standard deviations with respect to

,9

investigating statements made by “Researchers,” “Health Professionals, “Biotechnology
Companies,” “Food Companies” and “Extension Specialists.” On the other hand,
respondents’ views were highly varied, ranging from “Not At All Important” to “Very
Important” when asked the importance of investigating claims about biotech made by
“Farm Groups,” “Government Agencies,” “Non-Governmental Agencies,” “Activist
Groups” and “Celebrities/popular stars.” This is reflected by differences in standard
deviations associated with these groups.

Table 6 above summarizes the results (in order of decreasing level of importance)

of statements about bioengineered food innovations made by different individuals, groups

and organization spokespersons.

4.3.5 Extent to Which Selected Issues Impact Perceptions of Biotechnology

Table 7 provides the findings of selected issues likely to impact respondents’
perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. A four-point Likert scale (1 =. Very Low,
2 = Low, 3 = High and 4 = Very High) was used to rate the degree to which four selected
issues impact respondents’ perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. Table 7 below
provides a summary of percentages, means and standard deviations of responses
pertaining to factors likely to impact respondents’ perceptions of bioengineered food

innovations.

56

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of Different F actors/Issues That Impact Biotechnology

Perceptions

 

I2:

Variable/Scale
N = 301

Percent

 

Very Low

Low

High

Very High

SD

 

Fear Of Genes

Moving Unchecked

To Other Plants, 293
Insects Or

Microorganisms

Fear Of Food Safety
Consequences 293

Fear Of Harm To
The Environment 294

Religious Concerns
About "Altering

Nature" 294

6.83

10.58

13.61

29.25

18.09

18.77

22.79

32.65

32.76

28.33

36.05

22.45

42.32

42.32

27.55

15.65

3.11

3.02

2.78

2.24

0.93

1.02

1.00

1.04

 

From the results obtained, more than 70% of respondents assert that, “Fear of

Genes Moving Unchecked to Other Plants, Insects or Microorganisms” (mean = 3.11 and

SD = 0.93) and “Fear Of Food Safety Consequences” (mean = 3.02 and SD = 1.02) had a

“High” to “Very High” impact on their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

Less than 30% of respondents’ said “Fear Of Genes Moving Unchecked To Other Plants,

Insects Or Microorganisms” and “Food Safety Consequences” had a “Very Low” to

“Low” impact on their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. When the adjusted

Likert scale (1-1.75 = Very Low, 1.75-2.5 = Low, 2.5-3.25 = High and 3.25-4 = Very

High) is used, “Fear Of Genes Moving Unchecked To Other Plants, Insects Or

Microorganisms” and “Food Safety Consequences” had a “Low” to “Very High” impact

57

on respondents’ perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. This is explained by the
relatively large SD = 0.93 and SD = 1.02.

More than 60% (mean = 2.78 and SD = 1.0) of all respondents said “Fear Of
Harm To The Environment” had a “High” to“Very High” impact on their perceptions of
bioengineered food innovations while less than 40% said “Fear Of Harm To The
Environment” had a “Low” to “Very Low” impact on their perceptions of bioengineered
food innovations.

When asked how “Religious Concerns About Altering Nature" impacted their
perceptions of bioengineered food innovations, more than 60% (mean = 2.24, SD = 1.04)
of respondents said this particular issue had a “Low” to “Very Low” impact on their
perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. On the other hand, less than 40% of
respondents said “Religious Concerns About "Altering Nature" had a “High” to “Very

High” impact on their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

4.4 OBJECTIVE 3: To Determine KNUST Students’ Perceptions Regarding
Government Efforts in Instituting Appropriate Frameworks Aimed at Facilitating

the Adoption and Implementation of Bioengineered Food Innovations in Ghana

KN US T Students ’ Perceptions of Government ’5 Role in Promoting Modern
Biotechnology in Ghana

Table 8 represents the degree to which respondents agree or disagree with
statements regarding Ghana govemment’s efforts to promote bioengineered food
innovations research, bio-safety, labeling and patents. A four point Likert-Scale of the

form 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree was provided to

58

help respondents rate their responses. Table 8 below provides response percentages,

means and standard deviations.

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of Government 's Role in Biotechnology Research, Bio-

Scy’ety, Labeling and Patents in Ghana

 

 

Percent
>4 0 v >.

a e a a a M SD
Variable/Scale e g g 20 8 20
N = 301 ’v'i Q D 35
The Ghanaian Government
Should Require Labeling Of 291 1.4 6 9 41.2 50 5 3.41 0.68
Transgenic Animal Products.
The Ghanaian Government
Should Require Labeling Of 291 1.7 6.5 46.1 45.7 3.36 0.68
Transgenic Plant Products.
The Ghanaian Government
Should.ReJect Patent . 288 21.5 39.2 28.8 10.4 2.28 0.92
Protection Of Transgenic
Animals.
Ghana Has In Place The
Essential Bio-Safety
Legislation To Receive GM 294 22.8 38.8 27.6 10.9 2.3 0.93
Crops From Abroad.
The Ghanaian Government
ShouldReJect Patent . 290 21.0 40.7 30.7 7.6 2.35 0.87
Protection Of Transgenrc
Plants.
There Are Enough Qualified
Persons T0 TeStT’ansgemc 296 24.7 38.5 29.0 7.8 2.20 0.90

Crops In Ghana.

 

Over 90% (mean = 3.41 and 3.36, SD = 0.68 and 0.68) of respondents “Agree” to

“Strongly Agree” that “The Ghanaian Govemment Should Require Labeling of

59

Transgenic Plant and Animal Products.” Less than 10% “Disagree” to “Strongly
Disagree” on the issue of “Labeling Transgenic Plants and Animals.”

Less than 40% (mean = 2.28 and 2.25, SD = 0.92 and 0.87) of respondents
“Agree” to “Strongly Agree” that “The Ghanaian Government Should Reject Patent
Protection of Transgenic Animals and Plants.” Slightly more than 60% of respondents
said the government should allow “Patent Protection of Transgenic Animals and Plants.”

When asked the extent to which they agree with the statement “Ghana Has In
Place The Essential Bio-Safety Legislation To Receive GM Crops From Abroad,” less
than 40% (mean = 2.27, SD = 0.93) of respondents “Agree to “Strongly Agree” with this
statement; a little over 60% of all respondents “Disagree” to “Strongly Disagree” with
this statement.

Respondents were also asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the
statement “There Are Enough Qualified Persons to Test Transgenic Crops in Ghana.”
From the results, less than 40% “Agree” to “Strongly Agree” with this statement. About
60% of all respondents do not believe Ghana has “Enough Qualified Persons to Test

Transgenic Crops.”

4.5 OBJECTIVE 4: To Determine Sources of Information Used by KNUST

Students in Establishing their Knowledge and Perceptions of Biotechnology.

4.5.1 Extent to which selected sources are used to obtain information on

biotechnology

Table 9 presents the results obtained when respondents were asked how often they
used selected sources to gain information on bioengineered food innovations. A four-

point Likert scale (1 = Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Often, 4 = Always) was used to rate

60

the degree to which each source is used. In descending order (using percentages, means,

and standard deviations), Table 9 presents the extent to which various sources are used to

seek information on bioengineered food innovations.

 

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics of Sources of Information on Biotechnology

 

 

Percent
3‘
£7. 5 E 1: Q, M SD
> .9 g g
. P g o _
Variable/Scale Z 8 <1
N = 301 0
University Coursework 294 9.86 31.29 31.63 27.21 2.76 0.96
Scientific Journals 294 11.42 33.22 39.10 16.26 2.60 0.89
Local Television Programs 293 10.69 46.21 30.34 12.76 2.45 0.85
Internet 293 20.48 30.38 35.49 13.65 2.42 0.96
Technical Publications/Reports 291 15.81 48.45 24.40 1 1.34 2.31 0.87
Newspaper 291 17.93 50.00 25.52 6.55 2.21 0.81
Radio 290 26.53 43.54 21.77 8.16 2.12 0.89
Popular Magazines 290 28.67 47.10 17.75 6.48 2.02 0.85
Non-Governmental
Organizations 289 37.72 42.56 15.57 4.15 1.86 0.83
EXtens‘O" AgemS/Govemmem 289 40.55 43.64 10.31 5.50 1.81 0.83

Services

 

Almost 90% (mean = 2.60, SD = 0.90) of respondents “Occasionally” to

“Always” utilize “University Coursework,

gain information on biotechnology. On the other hand, 10% of respondents “Never”

99 6‘

utilize “University Coursework,” “Scientific Journals” or “Television” to gain

information on bioengineered food innovations.

61

Scientific Journals” and “Television” to

The “Internet,” “Technical Publications/Reports” and “Newspaper” on average are
used “Occasionally” to “Always” by 82% (mean = 2.31, SD = 0.88) of all respondents to
gain information on bioengineered food innovations. An average of 18% of respondents
“Never” use any of these three sources to gain information on bioengineered food
innovations.

While about, 72% (mean = 2.07, SD = 0.87) of respondents said they
“Occasionally” to “Always” use “Radio” and “Popular Magazines” to again information
on bioengineered food innovations, 27% said they “Never” use these sources to gain
information on bioengineered food innovations.

About 61% (mean = 1.84, SD = 0.83) of respondents said they “Occasionally” to
“Always” use “Non-Governmental Organizations” and “Extension/Govemment
Services” to gain information on bioengineered food innovations, while 39% said they
“Never” use these sources to gain information on bioengineered food innovations.

In summary, an average of 67% of all respondents “Occasionally to Often” use all
ten information sources listed in Table 9, while only 11% “Always” utilize these sources
to gain information onbioengineered food innovations. About 20% of all respondents
said they “Never” use any of the sources listed in Table 9 to gain information on
bioengineered food innovations. Information obtained in Table 9, indicates that
respondents use “University Coursework” the most to gain information on bioengineered

food innovations. “Extension/Govemment Services” was the least used.

62

4.5.2 Extent to which something about bioengineered food innovations is heard from

selected sources

Respondents were asked how often they heard something about bioengineered
food innovations from a list of ten selected information sources. Table 10 shows how
respondents answered the questions in this category. A four-point Likert scale (1 =
Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Often, 4 = Always) was used to rate the degree to which
information on bioengineered food innovations was received from each selected source.

Table 10: Deschrtive Statistics of Sources Used to Receive Information on Biotechnology

 

 

 

Percent
.2:
ll 5 E r: 9, M SD

Variable/Scale ,>, g g e
N = 301 Z § 0 21‘

0
University Coursework 292 8.56 34.93 33.90 22.60 2.71 0.91
Scientific Journals 292 11.30 36.99 35.62 16.10 2.57 0.89
Television 291 10.65 51.20 27.15 11.00 2.38 0.82
Internet 292 18.49 36.64 33.22 11.64 2.38 0.92
Technical
Publications/Reports 286 15 .73 44.76 29.72 9.79 2.34 0.86
Newspaper 294 17.69 57.48 21.77 3.06 2.10 0.71
Radio 293 24.23 52.56 16.72 6.48 2.05 0.82
Popular Magazines 290 28.97 52.41 16.21 2.41 1.92 0.74
Non-Governmental
Organizations 285 33.68 47.02 16.49 3.51 1.89 0.79
Extension/Govemment
Services 294 35.71 46.60 13.27 4.42 1.86 0.81

 

63

On average, 90% (mean = 2.56, SD = 0.87) of all respondents said they
“Occasionally” to “Always” use “University Coursework,” “Scientific Journals” and
“Television” to gain information on bioengineered food innovations. About ten percent
(10%) of respondents said they “Never” use “University Coursework,” “Scientific
Journals” or Television to gain information on bioengineered food innovations.

“Internet,” “Technical Publications/Reports” and “Newspaper” on average are
used “Occasionally” to “Always” by approximately 83% (mean = 2.27, SD = 0.83) of all
respondents to gain information on bioengineered food innovations. An average of 17.3%
of respondents said they “Never” use any of these three sources to gain information on
bioengineered food innovations.

While about 73% (mean = 1.99, SD = 0.78) of respondents said they
“Occasionally” to “Always” used “Radio” and “Popular Magazines,” 27% said they
“Never” use any of these sources to gain information on bioengineered food innovations.

Sixty-five percent (65%) (mean = 1.88, SD = 0.80) of respondents said they
“Occasionally” to “Always” use “Non-Governmental Organizations” and
“Extension/Government Services” to gain information on bioengineered food
innovations, while 35% said they have “Never” used any of these sources to gain
information on bioengineered food innovations.

In summary, approximately 70% of all respondents “Occasionally to Often” use at
least one of the ten information sources provided in Tables 10 while only 10% said they
“Always” use these sources to gain information on bioengineered food innovations. Also,

approximately 20% of all respondents said they “Never” used any of the sources

64

. provided in Table 10 to gain information on bioengineered food innovations. From Table
10, respondents use “University Coursework” the most in gaining information on
bioengineered food innovations. “Extension/Government Services” was, however, the
least used. Table 10 presents in descending order (using percentages, means, and standard
deviations) the extent to which various sources are use to gain information on

bioengineered food innovations.

65

4.5.3 Extent to which selected social interactions impact students’ perceptions of

bioengineered food innovations

Respondents’ were asked to what extent selected social interactions impact their
perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. Table 11 below presents in descending
order of percentages, means, and standard deviations, the extent to which selected social
interactions impact respondents’ perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics of Different Social Interactions Used in Establishing
Perceptions of Biotechnology

 

 

 

Percent
.21
a 5 "2‘ c ‘9. M SD

> .2 g g

Q) m _
Variable/Scale 2 g 0 <
N=301 O
K’low‘edgeFrom 293 5.12 28.67 44.03 22.18 2.83 0.83
Sc1ence Classes
University Professors
BeliefsAbout 294 12.93 26.19 35.03 25.85 2.74 0.99
Biotechnology
ExPenence‘“ SC‘ence 293 20.14 36.52 32.08 11.26 2.34 0.93
Labs
Publicly Accepted
Attitudes Towards 290 20.00 49.31 24.48 6.21 2.17 0.82
Biotechnology
Friends' Beliefs
AboutBiotechnology 291 31.62 44.33 20.27 3.78 1.96 0.82
Family's Beliefs
AboutBiotechnology 292 52.74 32.53 11.30 3.42 1.65 0.81
ReligiousBeliefs 292 58.22 25.00 11.30 5.48 1.64 0.89

 

66

About 95% of respondents in Table 11 said “Knowledge From Science Classes”
“Occasionally” to “Always” impact their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations
while 5% said “Knowledge From Science Classes” “Never” impact their perceptions of
bioengineered food innovations. The results also indicated that, about 73% (Mean = 2.83,
SD = 0.83) of respondents said “Knowledge From Science Classes” “Occasionally to
Often” impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations while 22% said
“Knowledge From Science Classes” “Always” impacted their perceptions of
bioengineered food innovations.

The findings show that on average 80% of respondents said “University
Professors Beliefs About Biotechnology,” “Experience in Science Labs,” “Publicly
Accepted Attitudes Towards Biotechnology” and “Friends' Beliefs About
Biotechnology” “Occasionally” to “Always” impacted their perceptions of bioengineered
food innovations. Broken down further, 67% (mean = 2.30, SD = 0.89) said “University
Professors Beliefs About Biotechnology,” “Experience in Science Labs,” “Publicly
Accepted Attitudes Towards Biotechnology” and “Friends' Beliefs About
Biotechnology” only “Occasionally to Often” impact their perceptions of bioengineered
food innovations. An average of 12 % of respondents said these issues “Always”
impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations while 21% said they
“Never” impacted their perceptions.

An average of 55 % (mean = 1.65 and SD = 0.85) of respondents indicated that
“Family and Religious Beliefs about Biotechnology,” “Never” impact their perceptions
of bioengineered food innovations. Forty-percent (40%) of respondents said “Family and

Religious Beliefs about Biotechnology” “Occasionally to Often” impacted their

67

perceptions of bioengineered food innovations, while 5% of said these issues “Always”
impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

In summary, “Knowledge From Science Classes” impacted respondents’
perceptions of bioengineered food innovations the most. “Family and Religious Beliefs
about Biotechnology” had the least impact on respondents’ perceptions of bioengineered

food innovations.

4.6 OBJECTIVE 5: How Different Information Sources/Channels Influence

Respondents’ Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology.

4.6.1 Respondents’ self perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations

On a four-point Likert scale (1 = Very Low, 2 = Low, 3 = High and 4 = Very
High), respondents were asked to rate their self-perceived knowledge of bioengineered
food innovations.

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics of Student '5 Perceived Knowledge Regarding
Biotechnology

 

 

 

Percent
,, g 75.0 M SD
. — .1 3 '5) I
Vanable/Scale b .3 :E Z‘
N = 301 é’ é’
How Would You

Rate Your Current
Level OfKnowledge 289 10.03 43.94 41.52 4.50 2.40 0.73

Regarding
Biotechnology?

 

The findings in Table 12 indicate that about 54% of respondents reported their
knowledge of bioengineered food innovations was “Low” to “Very Low” (mean = 2.40,

SD = 0.73) while 46% said their knowledge was “High” to “Very High.” A more detailed

68

breakdown of the results indicates that approximately 10% of respondents said their

knowledge was “Very Low” while only 5% said their knowledge was “Very High.”

4.7 Knowledge Cross Tabulations

In this section cross tabulations are performed based on respondents’ self
perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations to determine if there was a
significant difference between the mean of a respondent’s self perceived knowledge of
bioengineered food innovations and questions pertaining to the first nine sections of the
questionnaire (Appendix C). If the asymptotic significance (p) value is less that 0.05, then
a significant difference exists between respondents’ self perceived knowledge of

bioengineered food innovations and the question under consideration (Norusis, 2000).

4. 7.1 Self-Perceived Knowledge Aligned With Internet, Technical Publications/Reports
and "University Course Work"
Table 13 shows that a statistically significant difference exists between the extent

to which the Internet ( 12 = 11.772, p = 0.008), Technical Publications/Reports ( 12 =

8.070, p = 0.045) and University Course Work ( 12 = 8.109, p = 0.044) are use to seek
information on bioengineered food innovations and a students’ “Self Perceived
Knowledge of Biotechnology.”

Table 13 below presents summary statistics of cross tabulations of self perceived
knowledge of bioengineered food innovations aligned with “lntemet,” Technical

Publications/Reports, and “University Course Work.”

69

Table 13: Cross T abulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned With
Utilization of Sources of Information

 

 

 

Percent
.29
£1. a; 2 c: E’ 2
Variable/Scale 5 g g 3 P I
N = 301 Z 8 O 2‘
0
Internet 283 0.008 11.772
Low 39 52 45 15
High 18 37 53 24
Technical '
Publications/Reports 281 0045 8070
LOW . 31 65 39 15
High 13 72 29 17
University Course Work 284 0.044 8.109
Low 20 5 1 45 36
High 7 36 46 43

 

Of the 53.36% (n = 151) of respondents who said their knowledge of
bioengineered food innovations was “Low,” about 14% (n = 39) said they “Never” use
“Internet” as a source of information while 5% (n = 15) said they “Always” use
“Internet” as a source of information. About 34% (n = 94) said they “Occasionally” to
“Often” use the “Internet” for information on bioengineered food innovations.

The results from Table 13 indicate that out of approximately 47% (n = 132) of
respondents who said their knowledge of bioengineered food innovations was “High,”
about 6% (n = 18) “Never” used the “Internet” as a source of information on

bioengineered food innovations. Eight percent (8%, n = 24) said they “Always” use the

70

“Internet” as a source of information. Sixty-eight percent (68%, n = 90) of all respondents
who perceived their knowledge to be “High,” also said they “Occasionally” to “Often”
use the “lntemet” to seek information on bioengineered food innovations.

In summary, about 20% of respondents (Low plus High self-perceived knowledge
respondents) “Never” used the “Internet” to seek information on bioengineered food
innovations while about 66% “Occasionally” to “Often” used the “Internet” for
information. In all, about 14% of respondents said they “Always” used the “Internet” as a
source of information on bioengineered food innovations.

From the cross tabulation results in Table 13, about 11% (n = 31) of the
respondents who said their knowledge of bioengineered food innovations was “Low” also
said they “Never” use Technical Publications/Reports to gain information on
bioengineered food innovations. About 5% (n = 13) of respondents who said their
knowledge was “High” said they “Never” used Technical Publications/Reports as a
source of information on bioengineered food innovations. A total of 16% (n = 44) of
respondents said they “Never” used Technical Publications/Reports to gain information
on bioengineered food innovations.

Of respondents who said their knowledge was “Low,” about 37% (n = 104) said
they “Occasionally” to “Often” used Technical Publications/Reports to gain information
on bioengineered food innovations. Similarly, about 36% (n = 101) of those who said
their knowledge was “High” also said they “Occasionally” to “Often used Technical
Publications/Reports to seek knowledge on biotechnology. About 73% (n = 205) of
respondents said they “Occasionally” to “Often used Technical Publications/Reports to

gain information on bioengineered food innovations. Among respondents who indicated

71

_ that their knowledge was “Low,” about 5 % (n = 15) said they “Always” used Technical
Publications/Reports to gain information on biotechnology. The findings also indicated
that of 6% (n = 17) of respondents who said their knowledge was “High,” said they
“Always” used Technical Publications/Reports to seek information on bioengineered
food innovations.

Of respondents who said their knowledge was “Low,” about 7% (n = 20)
“Never,” 39% (n = 96) “Occasionally” to “Often” and 13% (n = 36) “Always” used
“University Course Work” to seek information on bioengineered food innovations. With
respect to self perceived “High” knowledge respondents, about 2% (n = 7) said they
“Never” used “University Course Work” to seek information on bioengineered food
innovations, 29% (n = 82) “Occasionally” to “Often” while 15 % (n = 36) “Always” used
“University Course Work” to seek information on bioengineered food innovations.

It can be deduced from the findings that respondents who said their knowledge of
bioengineered food innovations was “Low” were more likely to “Never” use any of the
three information sources provided in Table 13 while those who said their knowledge
was high were most likely to use these information sources to gain knowledge about
bioengineered food innovations.

4. 7.2 Self-Perceived Knowledge Aligned With Scientific Journals

Table 14 shows a statistically significant difference between the extent to which
respondents used Scientific Journals ( 12 = 16.044, p = 0.001) to seek information on

bioengineered food innovations and their self perceived knowledge of bioengineered food

innovations.

72

Table 14: Cross T abulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned With
Utilization/A wareness of Iijormation Sources

Self Perceived Knowledge

 

 

 

of Biotechnology
.22
— 2
n l— CU m p Z
Variable/Scale g ,5 g g
N = 301 z 3 o 2‘
8
Scientific Journals 283 0.001 16.044
Low 25 53 57 17
High

 

Results from Table 14 show that about 9% (n = 25) of respondents who said their
knowledge of biotechnology was “Low” also said they “Never” used Scientific Journals
as a source of information on biotechnology. About 39% (n = 110) of respondents with
“Low” self perceived knowledge of biotechnology said they “Occasionally” to “Often”
used Scientific Journals to seek information on biotechnology. About 6% (n = 17) of
respondents with “Low” self perceived knowledge said they “Always” used Scientific
Journals to seek information on biotechnology. The results obtained from Table 14
indicate that about 2% (n = 6) of respondents with “High” self perceived knowledge said
they “Never” used Scientific Journals to seek information on biotechnology. In all,
approximately 34% (n = 95) of the respondents said they “Occasionally” to “Often” used
Scientific Journals to seek information on biotechnology while 11% (n = 30) said they

“Always” used “Scientific Journals” to seek information on biotechnology.

73

4. 7.3 Self-Perceived Knowledge Aligned with Friends ’ Beliefs about Biotechnology and

Knowledge from Science Classes

Table 15 shows a statistically significant difference between self perceived
knowledge of bioengineered food innovations and the different levels to which they used
friends’ beliefs ( 12 = 11.221, p = 0.011) and knowledge from science classes (12 =

9.046, p = 0.029) to establish their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

Table 15: Cross Tabulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned With
Different Experiences

 

Self Perceived Knowledge of

 

 

Biotechnology
.29
Variable/Scale n 8 8 5 3 p Z
N — 301 ° '7’ a 3
0
Friends’ Beliefs About
Biotechnology 283 0.011 11.221
Low 57 69 23 3
High 31 58 35 7
Knowledge From Sc1ence 285 0.029 9.046
Classes
Low 7 56 61 30
High 5 27 65 34

 

Table 15 shows that about 20% (n = 57) of respondents who said their knowledge
of bioengineered food innovations was “Low” also said their Friends’ Beliefs about
bioengineered food innovations “Never” impacted their own perceptions of
bioengineered food innovations. About 33% (n = 92) of respondents who rated their self
perceived knowledge as “Low,” also said their Friends’ Beliefs about biotechnology

“Occasionally” to “Often” impacted their own perceptions of bioengineered food

74

innovations. About 1% (n = 3) of those who rated their self perceived knowledge as
“Low” also said their Friends’ Beliefs about bioengineered food innovations “Always”
impacted their own perceptions of biotechnology. About 11% (n = 31) of respondents
who said their self perceived knowledge was “High,” said their Friends’ Beliefs about the
subject “Never” impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.
Approximately 2% (n = 7) of “High” self perceived knowledge respondents also said
their Friends’ Beliefs always impacted their perceptions of biotechnology. On the whole,
about 33% (n = 93) of respondents said their Friends’ Beliefs about bioengineered food
innovations “Occasionally” to “Often” influence their own perceptions of the subject.
From Table 15, 2% (n = 7) respondents who said their self perceived knowledge
was “Low” Knowledge also said Knowledge From Science Classes “Never” impacted
their perceptions of biotechnology.” About 10% (30) of respondents who said their self
perceived knowledge was “Low” also said Knowledge from Science Classes “Always”
impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. A total of about 41% (n =
117) of self perceived “Low” knowledge respondents also said Knowledge from Science
Classes “Occasionally” to “Often” impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food
innovations. With respect to “High” knowledge respondents, about 2% (n = 5) said
Knowledge from Science Classes “Never” impacted their perceptions bioengineered food
innovations. About 12% (n = 34) said Knowledge From Science Classes always impacted
their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. About 32% (n = 92) of self
perceived “High” knowledge respondents also said Knowledge from Science Classes

“Occasionally” to “Often” impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

75

In summary, a greater percentage of respondents with “Low” self perceived
knowledge of bioengineered food innovations said Knowledge from Science Classes
“Never” impacted their perceptions. On the other hand, a greater percentage of
respondents with “High” self-perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations
said Knowledge from Science Classes “Always” impacted their perceptions of

bioengineered food innovations.

4. 7.4 Self-Perceived Knowledge Aligned With Control of Released Genes into the

Environment

Table 16 shows a statistically significant difference between different levels of

importance placed on bioengineered food innovations research regarding “control of

2
released genes” ( Z = 10.555, p = 0.014) and respondents’ self perceived knowledge of
bioengineered food innovations.

Table 16: Cross T abulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned With
Different Types of Biotechnology Research

 

Self Perceived Knowledge of

 

 

Biotechnology
Variable/Scale ' ... H H E ’7 2
= n < = g —t‘ 153 g fig p Z
N 301 .5 < 8. a 8. 8. ;°>’ 8.
Z s L“ e s E
Control of Released 285 0.0144 10.555
Genes
Low 4 16 58 76
High 1 14 29 87

 

With regard to the importance placed on biotechnology research aimed at

controlling released genes into the environment, the cross tabulation results show that a

76

little more than 1% (n = 4) of respondents with “Low” self perceived knowledge believe
it is “Not at all Important” for biotechnology research to focus on Controlling Released
Genes into the environment. On the other hand, about 27% (n = 76) of self perceived
“Low” knowledge respondents believe it is “Very Important” that bioengineered food
innovations research Controlling Released Genes from entering the environment. About
26% (n = 74) of “Low” self perceived knowledge respondents also said it is “Fairly
Important” to “Important” that bioengineered food innovations research involves
Controlling Released Genes into the environment.

Less than 1% of “High” self perceived knowledge respondents (11 = 1) said it is
“Not at all Important” that biotechnology research focus on Controlling Released Genes
into the environment. Thirty percent (30%, n = 87) of high knowledge respondents also
said bioengineered food innovations research aimed at Controlling Released Genes into
the environment was “Very Important.” About 15% (n = 43) self perceived “High”
knowledge respondents said it is “Fairly Important” to “Important” that bioengineered

food innovations research focus on Controlling Released Genes into the environment.

77

4. 7.5 Self-Perceived Knowledge Aligned With Confidence in Statement Made About
Biotechnology by Extension Specialists, Health Professionals and Non-Governmental

Organizations

Table 17: Cross T abulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned With
Confidence in Statement Made About Biotechnology by Spokespersons from Different
Organizations

 

Self Perceived Knowledge of

 

 

Biotechnology
Variable/Scale " a» a a g, bf.) P 12
N = 301 § 3 3 E S’ “a“:
Extension Specialists 285 0.047 7.949
Low 7 57 74 15
High 8 30 73 21
Health Professionals 285 0.028 9.143
Low 8 22 69 56
High 2 12 49 68
Igfé‘figzgmema' 285 0.042 8.180
Low 12 57 66 18
High 6 32 72 22

 

Table 17 shows a statistically significant difference between different levels of

confidence placed in statements about biotechnology made by Extension Specialists ( 12
= 7.949, p = 0.047), Health Professionals ( 12 = 9.143, p = 0.028), Non-Governmental

Organization ( 12 = 8.18, p = 0.042) and respondents’ self perceived knowledge of

bioengineered food innovations.

78

On average less than 5% (n<14) of both “Low” and “High” self perceived
knowledge respondents said they had “Very Low” confidence in statements about
bioengineered food innovations made by Extension Specialists, Health Professionals and
spokespersons from Non-Governmental Organizations. Less than 10% (n<28) of both
“Low” and “High” knowledge respondents, said they had “Very High” confidence in
statements about bioengineered food innovations made by Extension Specialists, and
spokespersons from Non-Governmental Organizations. More than 20% (n>5 7) of both
“Low” and “High” knowledge respondents, said they had “Very High” confidence in
statements about biotechnology made by Health Professionals. Between 17% (n = 45.45)
to 26% (n = 74.1) of respondents on average, said they had “High” confidence in
statements made about bioengineered food innovations by spokespersons from all three

groups listed in Table 17.

4. 7. 6 Self-Perceived Knowledge Aligned With Claims Made About Biotechnology by

Spokespersons from Different Organizations

Table 18 shows a statistically significant difference between levels of importance placed

on investigating statements about bioengineered food innovations made by spokespersons

2
from Biotechnology Companies (1 = 8.151, p = 0.043) and respondents’ self perceived

knowledge of bioengineered food innovations.

79

Table 18: Cross T abulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned
Importance of Investigating Claims Made About Biotechnology by Spokespersons from
Different Organizations

 

 

Percentage
Variable/Scale n f i g E g 13 gig P 2"
= O a. “3 a. o. a.
N 301 2 E, u. E E. > f-j
B'OtCCh".°l°gy 284 8.151 0.043
Companies
Low 3 26 48 77
High 4 8 49 69

 

Less than 2% (n=6) of both “High” and “Low” self perceived knowledge
respondents said it was “Not At All Important” to investigate statements about
bioengineered food innovations made by spokespersons from biotechnology companies.
More “Low” self perceive knowledge respondents (27%, n = 77) relative to “High” self
perceived knowledge respondents (24%, n = 69) said it was very important to investigate
statements about bioengineered food innovations made by biotechnology companies.
Similarly, a higher percentage of “Low” self perceived knowledge respondents 26% (n =
74) relative to “High” knowledge respondents (20%, n = 57) said it was “Fairly
Important” to “Important” to investigate statements about bioengineered food innovations

made by biotechnology companies.

80

4. 7. 7 Self-Perceived Knowledge Aligned With Confidence in Government Policies

Regarding Biotechnology

Table 19 shows a statistically significant difference between the level of
confidence placed in Ghanaian govemment’s role in instituting legislation regarding bio-
safety ( 12 = 13.559, p = 0.004), labeling of transgenic plant products ( 12 = 11.215, p =

0.011) and respondents’ self perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations.

Table 19: Cross T abulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned With
Confidence in Government Policies Regarding Biotechnology

 

 

Percentage
>. v o >.
" E” 95’, ii. § E” § 9 12
9. 9: a °° 8 °"
63 '5 ”d < a <
Ghana has in place the
essential bio-safety legislation
. 285 0.004 13.559
to receive GM crops from
abroad
Low 45 51 47 11
High 20 60 32 19
The Ghanaian Government
Should Require Labeling Of 282 0.01 1 11.215
Transgenic Plant Products
Low 2 17 70 63
High 1 2 61 66

 

About 16% (n = 45) of “Low” self perceived knowledge respondents, “Strongly
Disagree” while 18% (n = 51) simply “Disagree” with the statement that “Ghana has in
place the essential bio-safety legislation to receive GM crops from abroad.” About 16%
(n = 47) “Low” self perceived knowledge respondents simply “Agree” while 4% (n = 11)

“Strongly Agree” with the same statement. With respect to “High” self perceived

81

knowledge respondents, 7% (n = 20) said they “Strongly Disagree” while 21% (n = 60)
said they “Disagree” with the statement “Ghana has in place the essential bio-safety
legislation to receive GM crOps from abroad.” About 11% (n = 32) of “High” self
perceived knowledge respondents said they simply “Agree” with the statement while 7%
(n = 19) said they “Strongly Agree” with this statement. Disregarding the degree to which
respondents agree or disagree, it can be concluded that a greater percentage of
respondents 62 (n = 176) “Disagree” (Strongly Disagree plus Disagree) with the
statement “Ghana has in place the essential bio-safety legislation to receive GM crops
from abroad” relative to 38% (n = 109) of respondents who “Agree” (Strongly Agree plus
Agree).

Less than 1% (n = 3) of “Low” and “High” self perceived knowledge respondents
“Strongly Disagree” with the statement “The Ghanaian Government Should Require
Labeling Of Transgenic Plant Products.” On the contrary, about 22% (n = 63) and 23% (n
= 66) “Strongly Agree” that government should require labeling of transgenic plant
products. Disregarding the degree to which Low” and “High” knowledge respondents
either agree or disagree, about 92% (n = 260) of respondents said the agree with the
statement “The Ghanaian Government Should Require Labeling Of Transgenic Plant

Products” while only 8% (n = 22) said they disagree with this statement.

82

4.8 Cross Tabulations with Demographic Variables

4.8.1 Self-Perceived Knowledge of Modern Biotechnology Aligned With Gender

Table 20 shows no statistically significant difference ( 12 = 6.597, p = 0.159),

between how males and females perceive their knowledge of bioengineered food
innovations.

Table 20: Cross T abulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned With
Gender

 

 

 

Percentage
Variable/Scale B 2
N = 301 n "’ E '50 E '50 p I
E ._1 if. > E
>
Sex 278 0.159 6.597
Male 214 7.01 45.79 42.52 4.21
Female 64 17.19 37.50 40.63 4.69

 

About 7% (n = 15) of all males and 17% (n = 11) of all female perceived their
knowledge of biotechnology to be “Very Low.” Approximately 46% (n = 98) of males
and 38% (n = 24) of females perceived their knowledge to be simply “Low.” About 43%
(n = 91) of all male and 41% (n = 26) of all females perceived their knowledge to be
“High.” About 4% (n = 9) of males and 5% (n = 3) of females perceived their knowledge
to be “Very High.” On each end of the spectrum of self perceived knowledge,
approximately 55% of all females compared to 53% of males perceive their knowledge as
“Low” (Very Low + Low). About 47% of males compared to 45% of females perceive

their knowledge to be “High” (High +Very High).

83

4.8.2 Self—Perceived Knowledge of Modern Biotechnology Aligned With Age

Table 21 shows that there is no significant difference ( 12 = 4.785, p = 0. 780),

between how different age groups of KNUST Agricultural Science Students perceive
their knowledge of bioengineered food innovations. For the purpose of data analysis the
age variable was grouped into three different categories (19 Years or Less, Between 20 to
24, and 25 Years and above). The entire breakdown of all different age categories is
presented in Appendix E.

Table 21: Cross T abulation- Self-Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology Aligned With
Age Distribution

 

 

 

Percentage
3 2
Variable/Scale n .3 3 g}, b {3 P I
N = 301 E ,3 '55 g '5
>
286 0.780 4.785
19 Years or Less 9 22.22 33.33 44.44 0.00

Between 20 to 24 227 9.25 44.93 42.29 3.52
25 Years and Above 50 12.00 40.00 40.00 8.00

 

Of all nine respondents under the age of 19, about 22% (n = 2) perceive their
knowledge of biotechnology to be “Very Low.” About 33% (n = 3) perceive their
knowledge as simply “Low” while 44% perceive their knowledge to be “High.” No
respondents under the age of 19 perceive their knowledge of modern biotechnology to be
“Very High.”

Two hundred and twenty seven (227) students between ages 20 and 24 rated their

knowledge of modern agricultural biotechnology. Of all respondents between the ages of

84

20 and 24, approximately 9% (n = 21) rated their knowledge to be “Very Low.” About
45% (n = 102) rated their knowledge to be simply “Low” while 42% (n = 96) said their
knowledge was “High.” About 4% (n = 8) of respondents in this age category said their
level of knowledge of modern agricultural biotechnology was “Very High.”

Fifty student (n = 50) above the age of 25 rated their knowledge of modern
biotechnology of which 12% (n = 6) said their knowledge was “Very Low” and 40% (n =
20) said their knowledge was simply “Low.” Another 40% (n = 20) of respondents said

their knowledge was “High” while 8% (n = 4) rated their knowledge as “Very High.”

4.9 Probit and Logit Model

Tables 22 and 23 present Probit and Logit model estimates based on different
sources of information used by respondents to establish their knowledge about
bioengineered food innovations. In Table 24, the Probit and Logit classifications were
used to predict respondents’ self-perceived knowledge of bioengineered food
innovations. The predicted results were then compared with respondents’ actual response

to the self-perceived knowledge question.

4. 9. 1 Purpose

The Probit and Logit models were used to further investigate factors that
significantly influence KNUST agricultural science students’ self perceived knowledge
of bioengineered food innovations. Both models were used to predict at a 90%
confidence level the probability that a marginal or unit change in a respondent’s self-
perceived knowledge will occur when she/he uses a particular information source in

isolation. In other words, both models were used to predict at a 90% confidence level, the

85

probability that a respondents’ self-perceived knowledge will increase from “Low” to
“High” when that individual uses only one source of information to gain knowledge
about biotechnology. In order to account for the unit change in the models, both “Low”
and “Very Low” self-perceived options of the questionnaire were recoded “Low = 0.”
Similarly, all both “High” and “Very High” self-perceived knowledge responses were
recoded “High = 1.” For the interpretations of both models to hold, all non-usage of
biotechnology information sources (N ever). was coded 0 and all usage (Occasionally,
Often, and Always) disregarding the degree of use was coded 1. In other words, both
models assumed respondents either used an information source (disregarding the degree

of use) or did not.

4.9.2 Statistical Significance of Coefficients

For both the Probit and Logit models, obtaining information on bioengineered
food innovations using “Internet” and “Newspapers” had a significant positive impact on
“High” self perceived knowledge at a 10% level of significance. Similarly, both models
suggest that establishing knowledge using “Friend’s Beliefs about Biotechnology” had a
positive and significant influence on “High” self-perceived knowledge at a 10% level of
significance.

The data from both Probit and Logit models suggest that using only “Radio” as a
source of information on bioengineered food innovations had a negative but significant
influence on a “High” self perceived knowledge at a 10% level of significance.

The R squared of 0.1235 and 0.1229 for both Probit and Logit models
respectively, suggests that only 12.35% and 12.29% of the variations in the model are

explained, suggesting that these models might be weak.

86

At 10% level of significance, only “Internet,” “Newspapers,” “Radio,” and

“Friends’ Beliefs about Biotechnology” were found to be significant.

4.9.3 Interpretation of Probabilities Associated With Significant Variables

Results from both Probit and Logit models suggest that using “Internet,”
“Newspapers,” “Radio,” and “Friends Beliefs about Biotechnology” explains why a
respondent’s self perceived knowledge about bioengineered food innovations was
“High.”

Assuming no other sources besides “Internet” were used to gain information on
bioengineered food innovations, the Probit and Logit models indicated that the expected
marginal effect of a unit change in “Internet” usage on the probability that a respondent’s
self perceived knowledge is “High” is 0.271 and 0.281 respectively. This means that one
can say with a 90% confidence level that if a respondent uses only “Internet” to gain
information on biotechnology, there is a 0.271 or 0.281 chance that individual’s self-
perceived knowledge will increase from “Low” (0) to “High” (1 ). The Logit model
presents a slightly higher probability than the Probit model. For this interpretation to
hold, it is important that non-Internet usage is coded zero (0) while usage (disregarding
the degree or level of usage) is coded one (1). To make provision for a unit change in
self-perceived knowledge, “Very Low” and “Low” responses were labeled “Low” and
coded (0) while “High and Very High” were labeled “High” and coded (1).

Using both Logit and Probit models, the expected marginal change in a
respondent’s perceived knowledge level resulting from using only “Newspapers” to gain
information about bioengineered food innovations, ceteris paribus, on the probability that

a his/her self-perceived knowledge is “High” is 0.274 and 0.283 respectively.

87

Alternatively, one can predict with a 90% level of confidence that if a respondent uses
only “Newspaper” sources to gain information about biotechnology, the probability that
his/her self-perceived knowledge will increase from “Low” to High” is a 0.274 (for the
Probit model) and 0.283 (for the Logit model). “Non -newspaper” usage is coded (0)
while usage (disregarding the degree or level of usage) is coded (1). Likewise “Low” and
“Very Low” self perceived knowledge disregarding the degree were coded (Low = 0) and
“High” and “Very High” self perceived knowledge were coded (High = 1).

Using the Probit and Logit models, the expected marginal effect resulting from a
respondent using only “Radio” to gain information on bioengineered food innovations,
all else equal, on the probability that his/her self perceived knowledge is “High” is -0.311
and -0.319 respectively. The negative probability associated with “Radio” implies that
increased “Radio” usage has the effect of increasing respondents self perceived
knowledge, with this increment occurring at a decreasing rate. “Non-radio” usage is
coded (0) while usage is (disregarding the degree or level of usage) is coded (1).

From both Probit and Logit models, the expected increase in self perceived
knowledge resulting from utilizing “Friends’ Beliefs about Biotechnology” to gain
information about bioengineered food innovations, ceteris paribus, on the probability that
a respondent’s self perceive knowledge is “High” is 0.200 and 0.202 respectively.
Alternatively, one can say with a 90% level of confidence that if respondents in this study
use only “Friends’ Beliefs about Biotechnology” to inform themselves about
biotechnology, there is a 0.200 (Probit) and 0.202 (Logit) chance their self-perceived

knowledge will increase from “Low” to High.” Non- usage of “Friends’ Beliefs about

88

Biotechnology” was coded (0) while usage (disregarding the degree or level of usage) is

coded (1).

4.9.4 Diflerences in Probit and Logit Model Estimates

From Tables 22 and 23, the results from both Probit and Logit estimates indicate
that the set of variables that had negative effects were the same and those that had
positive effects were also the same for both models. The independent variables that were
statistically significant were the same for both Logit and Probit models.

The marginal effects of the independent variables on the probability that a
respondent’s self perceived knowledge is “High” in terms of signs, disregarding the
magnitudes were the same for both Probit and Logit models. In all cases, the probabilities
obtained for the Probit model were lower than those obtained for the same variables in
the Logit model. However, in terms of magnitude, the marginal effects were nearly the
same at a one (1) decimal point.

In both models, “Low” self perceived knowledge was coded zero (0) while
“High” self perceived knowledge was assigned a code of one (1). Tables 22 and 23

present summaries of the findings explained above.

89

Table 1: Probit Estimate Results of Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology

 

 

Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology (y) Coeff Std' z P>z [90% Interval] dy/dx
( ,6 ) Err. Conf.
To What Went Do You Use the Following
Sources To Gain Information About
Biotechnology
Extension/Government Services 0.012 0.238 0.050 0.958 -0.454 0.479 0.005
Internet* 0.731 0.356 2.050 0.040 0.032 1.429 0.271
News Papers -0.564 0.355 -1.590 0.112 -l.259 0.131 -0.221
Non-Governmental Organizations -0.258 0.275 -0.940 0.349 -0.796 0.281 -0. 102
Popular Magazines 0.059 0.269 0.220 0.826 -0.468 0.586 0.023
Radio 0.167 0.310 0.540 0.590 -0.440 0.774 0.066
Scientific Journals 0.047 0.484 0.100 0.922 -0.901 0.995 0.019
Technical Publications/Reports 0.432 0.354 1.220 0.223 -0.263 1.126 0.166
Television 0.355 0.400 0.890 0.374 -0.429 1.140 0.137
University Course Work 0.225 0.438 0.510 0.607 -0.633 1.083 0.088
How Often Do You Hear Something About
Biotechnology From The Following Sources
Extension/Govemment Services 0434 0.245 -1.770 0.077 -0.915 0.046 -0. 172
Internet -0. 172 0.392 -0.440 0.661 -0.940 0.597 0.068
Newspapers* 0.747 0.394 1 .890 0.058 -0.026 1.520 0.274
Non-Governmental Organizations 0. 107 0.273 0.390 0.696 -0.429 0.642 0.042
Popular Magazines 0.168 0.302 0.560 0.577 -0.424 0.761 0.066
Radio* -0.804 0.331 -2.430 0.015 -1.453 -0. 155 -0.311
Scientific Journals 0.437 0.478 0.910 0.360 -0.500 1.375 0.167
Technical Publications/Reports -0.043 0.404 -0.1 10 0.916 -0.834 0.749 -0.017
Television 0.182 0.204 0.890 0.373 -0.218 0.581 0.072
University Course Work -0.221 0.470 -0.470 0.639 -1.142 0.701 -0.088
To What Extent Do You Use The Following
Experiences To Establish Your Perceptions
About Biotechnology
$232332?th Attitudes “wards 0.239 0.269 0.890 0.3 74 -0.288 0.766 0.093
Experience In Science Classes 0.209 0.262 0.800 0.425 -0.305 0.723 0.082
Family’s Beliefs About Biotechnology 0.132 0.240 0.550 0.583 -0.339 0.603 0.052
Friend’s Beliefs About Biotechnology" 0.516 0.253 2.040 0.042 0.020 1.013 0.200
Knowledge From Science Classes -0.209 0.534 -0.390 0.695 -1.255 0.837 -0.083
Religious Beliefs -0. 100 0.222 -0.450 0.653 -0.536 0.336 -0.040
gfggfijglggfessm Beliefs AW" -0351 0.319 -1.100 0.273 .0977 0.276 .0139
-1.392 0.608 -2.290 0.022 -2.584 -0.200

Lcons

 

n = 235, LR ch12 (27) = 40.14, Prob > chi2 = 0.0489, Pseudo R2 = 0.1235, Log likelihood = -142.463l,

dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1, y = Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology

(Low & High), *Significant Variables

90

Table 2: Logit Estimate Results of Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology

 

 

 

Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology (y) Coeff it: 2 P>z 2.2:; Intelrval dy/dx
To What Extent Do You Use the Following
Sources To Gain Information About
Biotechnology
Extension/Govemment Services 0.019 0.391 0.05 0.961 -0.748 0.786 0.005
lnternet* 1.237 0.610 2.03 0.042* 0.042 2.432 0.281
News Papers 0932 0.581 -1.6 0.109 -2.069 0.206 -0.228
Non-Governmental Organizations -0.438 0.460 -0.95 0.341 -1.339 0.463 -0.109
Popular Magazines 0.119 0.456 ‘ 0.26 0.794 -0.774 1.012 0.029
Radio 0.251 0.512 0.49 0.624 -0.753 1.254 0.062
Scientific Journals 0.141 0.815 0.17 0.863 -1.456 1.737 0.035
Technical Publications/Reports 0.740 0.618 1.2 0.231 -0.470 1.951 0.175
Television 0.621 0.677 0.92 0.359 «0.706 1.948 0.148
University Course Work 0.368 0.738 0.5 0.619 -1.080 1.815 0.089
How Often Do You Hear Something About
Biotechnology From The Following Sources
Extension/Govemment Services -0.702 0.407 -1.73 0.084 -1.500 0.095 -0. 174
lntemet -0.378 0.683 -0.55 0.58 -1.716 0.960 -0.094
Newspapers* 1.268 0.657 1.93 0.054 -0.021 2.556 0.283
Non-Governmental Organizations 0. 181 0.461 0.39 0.695 -0.722 1.083 0.045
Popular Magazines 0.263 0.510 0.52 0.606 -0.737 1.263 0.065
Radioir -1.330 0.564 -2.36 0.018 -2.435 -0.225 ~0.319
Scientific Journals 0.675 0.800 0.84 0.399 -0.893 2.243 0.160
Technical Publications/Reports -0.082 0.685 -0. 12 0.905 -1.424 1.261 -0.020
Television 0.274 0.334 0.82 0.41 1 -0.380 0.928 0.068
University Course Work -0.326 0.814 -0.4 0.689 -1.921 1.269 -0.081
To What Extent Do You Use The Following
Experiences To Establish Your Perceptions
About Biotechnology
Eli'sgggngggpted Ammdes “wards 0.389 0.446 0.87 0.383 -0.486 1.264 0.095
Experience In Science Classes 0.321 0.446 0.72 0.471 0553 1.195 0.079
Family’s Beliefs About Biotechnology 0.245 0.396 0.62 0.536 -0.531 1.021 0.061
Friend’s Beliefs About Biotechnology“ 0.839 0.413 2.03 0.042 0.029 1.649 0.202
Knowledge From Science Classes -O.3 10 0.897 -0.35 0.73 -2.067 1.448 -0.077
Religious Beliefs -0.188 0.365 -0.51 0.608 -0.904 0.529 -0.046
gfigfifilggfessm Beliefs Abou‘ -0.553 0.525 -1.05 0.292 -1.581 0.475 .0137
-2.366 1.070 -2.21 0.027 -4.463 -0.268

Jens

 

n = 235, LR chi2 (27) = 39.96, Prob > ch12 = 0.0517, Pseudo R2 = 0.1229, Log likelith = -142.55,
dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1, y = Self Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology

(Low & High), *Significant Variableshh

91

4.10 Probit and Logit Classifications

When the Probit and Logit models were used to predict respondents’ self-
perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations, both models gave the same
results. From the classification results obtained, 37.47% (11 = 81) of respondents
perceived their knowledge of bioengineered food innovations to be high and both models
actually predicted this percentage to be true. However, for the 20% (n = 47) of
respondents who said their knowledge of bioengineered food innovations was low, both
Probit and Logit models predicted these respondents’ knowledge to be high. Similarly,
32.77% (11 = 77) of respondents said their knowledge was low, and the models predicted
this to be true. However, 12.77% (r1 = 30) said their knowledge was high, and both
models predicted their knowledge to be rather high. For both Probit and Logit models,
67.23% (11 = 158) of predicted outcomes were actually true whereas 32.77% (n = 77) of
predicted outcomes were false. Table 24 shows that in all instances, both Probit and Logit
model predictions were exactly the same.

Table 24: Classification of Predicted and Actual Level of Knowledge

 

Probit and Logit Classifications

 

N = 301, 11 True High True Low Total

 

Total Total

= 235 0 0
Frequency /o Frequency /o FrecLuency %

 

Predicted

 

High 81 34.47 47 20.00 128 54.47
Pred‘Cted 30 12.77 77 32.77 107 45.53
Low
Total 111 47.23 124 52.77 235 100

 

Correctly Classified 67.23% = (81+77)/(235/100)

92

. 4.1] Summary
In this chapter, the findings of the research, guided by the five objectives were

presented. The data generated by SPSS 11.0 and STATA 8.0 were summarized and
presented in table format. Chapter five presents the conclusions and recommendations of

the study.

93

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Chapter Preview

The preceding chapters provided the introduction, literature review, methodology,
and findings relative to KNUST students’ perceptions of agricultural and food
innovations. In this chapter, conclusions, discussions and recommendations are presented
for each of the research objectives. Also, this chapter will provide insights into the
following research questions:

1. What information sources do KNUST agricultural science students use to obtain
information about bioengineered food innovations?

2. What information sources do KNUST agricultural science students believe are
more credible regarding information about bioengineered food innovations?

3. How do different information sources influence KNUST students’ perceptions of

bioengineered food innovations?

5.2 OBJECTIVE 1: To Describe the Demographic Composition of Agricultural

Science Students in KNUST.

5.2.1 Summary of Findings

KNUST agricultural science students are 23% female and 77% male. In terms of
how males and females perceive their knowledge of modern biotechnology, the results
obtained from Table 20 shows no statistically significant different ( 12 = 6.597, p =

0.159) between how males and females perceive their knowledge of biotechnology.

94

5.2.2 Discussion

In Ghana, males dominate agricultural science just like most other sciences.
According to Agyeman-Mensah (1988), any attempt at human development that ignores
more than half a nation’s target population is bound to fail. For this reason, there is need
for a serious recruitment campaign to be preceded by a general awareness regarding
opportunities in science and agriculture for female students. It is important that female
recruitment programs be preceded by awareness campaigns in the form of speaker series
highlighting the role of women in science and agriculture. Without awareness there will
be no interest in science and, without interest, initiatives like female recruitment efforts
will continue to be difficult to implement successfully.

Training more females in agriculture will ensure that the necessary human
resources are available to carry out gender sensitive activities/roles required especially in
rural development. A report by the National Science Foundation (NFS, 2000) has shown
that there is a considerable gender gap in attitudes towards biotechnology, even in most
developed countries, including the United States. Due to lack of exposure to agricultural
science, it was found that women were considerably more likely than men to believe that
the risks of modern biotechnology outweigh its benefits (42% of women compared to
33% of men in the US) (Kamaldeen and Powell, 2000).

Low representation of females in the KNUST agricultural science program raises
concern about the future of Ghana’s agricultural sector, rural and national development.
Agriculture is the backbone of Ghana’s economy, and women play a central role in all
aspects of agricultural production activities. During a 2002 United Nations sponsored

conference on “Learning Teaching and Research” in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Professor K.

95

Singh from KNUST stressed the necessity of expanding infrastructure to accommodate
possible increases in KNUST future enrollments. Professor Singh’s account of gender
distribution in KNUST indicates that, out of 11,714 total enrollments in 2002, 79% were
males and 21% were female. While it is necessary to expand infrastructure required to
meet increased student enrollments, it is equally necessary to institute programs that
would help bridge the gender gap at the secondary and tertiary level, particularly in the
sciences. According to the World Bank, 70% of the population in developing countries;
resides in rural areas where women play a key role in ensuring household food security.
Women produce 60% to 80% of the food in most developing countries yet they are the
very ones by—passed by most development efforts including education (Udoh, 1995).
1999). Udoh (1995) also asserts that, in most of Africa, women perform most of farm
work therefore, it is absolutely necessary to develop programs to recognize and utilize

women’s expertise.

5.2.3 Recommendations

To substantially increase female enrollments, it will be necessary for KNUST to
launch an aggressive recruitment program starting at the primary school level. KNUST
must also engage other Ghanaian universities and governmental bodies in this effort. The
recruitment program should be aimed at instituting national policies that stimulate
interest in science and agriculture among schoolgirls. It is not uncommon to find many
Ghanaians who have very negative perceptions of agriculture. It is unfortunate that most
Ghanaians view agriculture as a hoe and cutlass (sickle) venture involving solely
peasants. Lack of awareness about the vast opportunities in the field of agriculture may

be a contributing factor to these negative perceptions. A common trend among Ghanaian

96

female students, especially at the primary and secondary stages, is the tendency to shy
away from the science of agriculture. A national campaign is needed to correct these

myopic views about agriculture.

5.3 OBJECTIVE 2: To Describe Current Perceptions of Bioengineered Food

Innovations Amongst KNUST Agricultural Science Students

5.3.1 Summary of Findings: One

More than 90% of all respondents believe bioengineered food innovations will
have a somewhat positive to very positive impact on food production, commercial
farming and world hunger. An average 75% of all respondents believe bioengineered
food innovations will have a somewhat positive to very positive impact on the

environment, small scale farms, human health, fish and wildlife.

5.3.2 Discussion: One

Ten Eyck, Gaskell and Jackson (2004) found that 77% of respondents in the
United States think GM foods will be useful in the fight against world hunger, while only
44% in Europe think so. In a similar study in 11 land grant universities in the United
States, Wingenbach et al. (2004) found that 92% of future agricultural communicators
claim to be aware or somewhat aware of how biotechnology affects their food, health,
and environment. Like the findings in the KNU ST study, Wingenbach et al. (2004) also
found that a greater majority of college students (average M = 2.98) surveyed in the
United States believe bioengineered food innovations will have a somewhat positive to
very positive effect on world hunger, healthful foods, family farms (small farms) and fish

and wildlife. KNUST agricultural science students recorded a mean of M = 3.07 with

97

respect to impact of biotechnology on world hunger, healthful foods, family farms (small
farms) and fish and wildlife. While the findings from these two studies appear similar, it
may be concluded from the means obtained that KNUST agricultural science students are
somewhat more optimistic about the impact of bioengineered food innovations on
commercial farming, world hunger, environment, small scale farms, human health, fish
and wildlife. For this reason, it is likely that high optimism amongst KNUST agricultural
science students may be reflected in future policy decisions regarding agricultural

biotechnology implementation in Ghana.

5.3.3 Recommendations: One

A national campaign is needed to stimulate interest in agricultural science at both
the high school and college levels. The major agricultural colleges/departments in the
country need to lead the charge in formulating a national agricultural organization that
promotes agriculture among the youth. The proposed organization should first and
foremost encourage the youth to explore science, technology, and citizenship. National
student organizations such as the Ghana United Nations Students Association (GUNSA),
Ghana Rotary and the Lions Clubs have a long history of promoting educational
programs that empower the youth. In the same light, the proposed agricultural
organization could employ a similar platform but within a broader context of agriculture.
For example, youth programs/symposia may be designed to explore the relationship
between agriculture and nutritional aspects of health problems and how this could be
used as a weapon against diseases such as HIV/AIDS. Similarly, the role of agriculture in
addressing the urban/rural unemployment problem and, environmental problems may be

explored. At both the high school and college levels, the national agricultural

98

organization should be run by students with faculty providing some oversight. All effort
must be made to include school administrators as an intricate part of program design and
implementation because this will ensure the developments of a relationship that is based

on trust and hence the likelihood of program success.

5.3.4 Summary of Findings: Two

Approximately 90% of all respondents believe it is either “Important” or “Very
Important” that biotechnology research focus on “Safer Food,” “Benefit to the
Environment,” “Control of Released Genes into The Environment,” “Added Nutritional
Value To Food” and “Reduction of Pesticides.” A little more than 75% of all
respondents believe it is either ‘Important” or “Very Important” that bioengineered food
innovations research focus on “Risk Associated with Pesticide Use” and “Harm Caused

to the Environment.”

5.3.5 Discussion: Two

Hoban (2003) found that in 30 countries in the continents of America, Europe,
Asia and the Pacific Rim, over 85% of the public support the use of biotechnology to
develop new human medicines. However, this support dropped drastically to about 55%
at the mention of using biotechnology to improve the animal and food systems even if it
meant healthier food. A 1994 perception study by Jonathan Kelley, a senior fellow of
Australia’s Institute of Advanced Study, revealed that most Australians gave a highly
desirable rating of 92% to bioengineered food innovations that reduced the use of
chemicals and pesticides in farming and protected the environment (Kelley, 1994).

Desirability for healthier and more nutritious food was rated 90%. Higher yielding crops

99

. with the potential for increasing farm incomes through exports were rated 85%. Tastier
fresher food was rated 80% for desirability.

Similar to both Hoban’s and Kelley’s findings, the KNUST study found that more
than 80% of agricultural science students interviewed regard as very important,
biotechnology research that focus on “Safer Food,” “Benefit to the Environment,”
“Control of Released Genes into The Environment,” “Added Nutritional Value to Food”
and “Reduction of Pesticides.” Yet these same respondents say it is not important for
biotechnology research to focus on “Risk associated with Pesticide usage” and “Harm
caused to the Environment.” It is important to note that research that focus on “Risk
associated with Pesticide usage” and “Harm caused to the Environment” is necessary to
ensure a safe food system and environment.

Gaskell et al. (1996) point out that as far as modern biotechnology is concerned,
there is a structural difference between environmental organizations and medical
institutions. According to Gaskell and others, environmental organizations are not
responsible for delivering new food crops to the public, but rather they act as watchdogs.
By the same token, the-medical profession has direct responsibility for the provision of
new medical technologies to the public. Gaskell et al. (1996) conclude that because
providers of agricultural biotechnologies are far less widely trusted than providers of
medical biotechnologies, there is a likelihood that this trend in trust will significantly
shape public perceptions and attitudes in the two areas.

Many scientists have hypothesized that modern biotechnologies have the potential
to increase Africa’s agricultural productivity, while, at the same time, play a significant

role in health care. But the potential impacts, positive or negative, remain debatable. The

100

risks posed by bioengineered food innovations have become a major topic of concern in
recent years. While it is easy for some, especially industry representatives, to believe that
too much attention has been given to remote and negligible risks, J uma and Mugabe
(1996) claims that environmental and public interest groups have become more
concerned with the long term effects of bioengineered food innovations. The problem of
risk assessment, according to J uma and Mugabe (1996), is complicated by the fact that
most methods used to determine the level of risk are static and deterministic and at times
dangerously rational. While corporations may determine the level of risks largely on the
basis of potential effects on their profit earnings, public interest groups and community
organizations may base their criteria on non-quantifiable criteria, such as the quality of
life, environmental soundness and sustainable development objectives (Juma & Mugabe,
1996, p.122).

It has been argued by Juma and Mugabe (1996) that risk perception changes with
the degree of uncertainty and the amount of information available to the public. This
implies that the more credible the information that is made available and use by KNUST,
the more their perceptions are likely to reflect the true risks and benefits of modern

agricultural biotechnologies.

5.3.6 Recommendations: Two

The KNUST main library and the Department of Agriculture need to subscribe to
a wide range of scientific journals and books that address issues related to modern
agricultural biotechnology. In addition, the three major Ghanaian Universities (i.e.
University of Ghana, University of Cape Coast and KNUST) should together institute an

“Interlibrary Loan” program that allows students and faculty to access/share electronic

101

research material from a unified database. An “Interlibrary Library Loan Program” may
reduce the cost burden on each of the three institutions of having to maintain a regular
and current stock of biotechnology research information. A typical interlibrary program
may carry hard copies or electronic journals and articles on current issues related to
biotechnology. Examples of such journals may include, “The Journal of
AgroBiotechnology Management and Economics (AgBioForum),” “African Journal of
Biotechnology,” “Current Opinions in Biotechnology,” “Food Biotechnology,” “Journal
of Biotechnology,” “Nature Biotechnology,” “Trends in Biotechnology,” and “Trends in
Food Science & Technology.” Faculty need to encourage students to publish portions of
their thesis in some of these journals. The department of agriculture needs to encourage
students to publish portions of their thesis in journals by providing supplementary
funding for publications.

A course in bioethics or general agricultural ethics that highlights the pros and
cons and the ethics of agricultural biotechnology applications needs to be designed and
taught within the faculty of Agriculture. This course may also be opened to students from
other departments interested in the science of agricultural biotechnology. The course
content may include for example biotechnology applications in industrialized and
developing countries with special focus on Ghana and West Afiican countries,
intellectual property rights, biosafety and also overall preparedness of Ghana for the gene
revolution.

One of the ways of ensuring that scientific knowledge and practices reflect the
needs of people is to establish close links between the scientific community (KNUST

agricultural science students and faculty) and local groups (farmers, local extension

102

units). J uma and Mugabe (1996) contend that currently such links are very minimal in
most of Africa, and the two groups tend to view each other with suspicion. Series of
symposia and workshop may be organized where researchers (local, regional and
international) are invited to speak to specific issues on biotechnology and the
implications of those issues on Ghana’s economy. The Department of Agriculture and
Natural Resources should seek sponsorship of such educational activities from the private
sector, businesses and governmental and non-govemmental agencies. Revitalizing the
channels of communication through continuous dialogue described above may neutralize

some of the suspicions and encourage trust in science and agricultural biotechnology.

5.3.7 Summary of Findings: Three

Almost 90% of respondents said their confidence was either “High” or “Very
High” in statements made by “Researchers” regarding bioengineered food innovations.
On average 75% of respondents said they had “High” to “Very High” confidence in
statements about bioengineered food innovations made by Health Professionals,”
spokesmen from “Biotechnology Companies,” “Food Companies” and “Extension
Specialists.” With respect to “Non-Governmental Organizations,” “Government
Agencies” and “Farm Groups,” approximately 55% of respondents said they had “High”
to “Very High” confidence in statements made by spokesmen from these groups. Nearly
70% of all respondents said they had “Low” to “Very Low” confidence in statements
about bioengineered food innovations made by “Celebrities/Popular Stars.”

More that 75% of respondents contend that it is either “Important” or “Very
Important” to investigate statements about bioengineered food innovations made by

“Researchers,” “Health Professionals,” “Biotechnology Companies,” “Food Companies”

103

and “Extension Specialists” be thoroughly investigated. Approximately 70% of
respondents also said it is “Important” to “Very Important” that statements about
bioengineered food innovations made by “Farm Groups,” “Government Agencies,”
“Non-Governmental Agencies” and “Activist Groups” be thoroughly investigated. A
little more than 50% of all respondents believe statements about biotechnology made by

“Celebrities/Popular Stars” are not worth investigating.

5.3.8 Discussion: Three

A wide range of 5% (n = 14.25) to 20% (n = 57) ofboth “High and “Low”
knowledge respondents said they had “Low” confidence in statements about
bioengineered food innovations made Extension Specialists, Health Professionals and
spokespersons from Non-Governmental Organization. This wide variation in the number
of “Low” confidence response among both “High” and “Low” self perceived knowledge
respondents may signal a high degree of uncertainty with respect to confidence in
statements made by Extension Specialists, Health Professionals and spokespersons from
Non-Governmental Organization

Similar to the KNU ST study, when the question of “Who can be trusted to tell the
truth about genetically modified foods?” was asked in the Eurobarometer 1996, European
responses were as follows: Environmental organizations (23%), consumer organizations
(19.2%) farmer organizations (17%), medical profession (14%), universities (11%),
television and news papers (4.84%), national public bodies (4%), industry (2%), religious
organizations (1%), political parties (.5%) (Gaskell et al. 1996, p. 206). Gaskell et al.
(1996) also found that more Europeans trusted international organizations such as the

World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (UN) (35%) more than their own

104

national institutions in terms of regulating biotechnology (National public bodies (17%)
or EU (6%)). Like the KNU ST study however, scientific organizations in Europe appear
to enjoy a relatively high vote of confidence by being the second highest choice (22%). In
terms of new genetically modified crops, Gaskell et al. (1996) found that environmental
organizations were trusted the most (22%), with consumer and farming organizations
second (17%). Gaskell et al. (1996) also found that, with respect to modern
biotechnologies, environmental organizations and the medical profession are generally
the most widely trusted institutions within their own spheres of competence. A similar
biotechnology perception study by Wagner, Torgesen, Seifert, Grabner, and Lehner
(1998) revealed that Austrians who are minimally acquainted with the topic tend to trust
consumer organizations more than unacquainted respondents who either select the “Do
not know” or “Neutral” option (who have more trust for public authorities the most).
On the whole, even though a majority of KNUST agricultural science students
indicated they had high confidence in statements made by “Researchers,” “Health
Professionals,” “Biotechnology Companies,” “Food Companies” and “Extension
Specialists,” they still believe statements from these groups need to be thoroughly
investigated. Respondents’ confidence was lowest with respect to statements about
bioengineered food innovations made by Celebrities/Popular stars; however, they also
believe statements from this particular group warrant very little investigation. When
viewed in terms of the credibility of information provided, and the value placed on
investigation time, it is logical that respondents would rather investigate information

provided by “Researchers,” “Health Professionals,” “Biotechnology Companies,” “Food

105

Companies” and “Extension Specialists” because the value of time spent on these
investigations is higher than on groups (i.e. celebrities etc.) deemed less credible.

Ten Eyck et al. (2004) hypothesize that trust or confidence is a significant
determinant of perceptions and attitudes towards GM food, and that differential levels of
trust may help explain differences in respondents’ perceptions of modern biotechnology.
The aouthors further argue that “if one has confidence in the regulators of a technology
then the issue of trust does not arise in the sense that one places his or her fate in the
hands of trusted others” (Ten Eyck et al. 2004, p. 262).

Gaskell et al. (1996) argue that knowledge is an important determinant of trust
and support for science and technology; therefore, the more informed the public, the
more likely they are to be supportive of science. For a new science like biotechnology,
the knowledge-support hypothesis by Gaskell et al. (1996), might, in part, explain some
of the ambivalence observed amongst KNU ST students. Wagner et al. (1998) suggest that
findings such as those reported in the KNUST study must be qualified by the degree of
contact with the issue under discussion. It thus follows that the less contact with issues
related to biotechnology, the lower the level of knowledge displayed and hence the higher

the discourse displayed by respondents.

5.3.9 Recommendations: Three

From the above discussion, it is apparent that the degree of contact with issues on
biotechnology through various communication channels (e.g., mass media, journals,
coursework, etc.) will determine students’ understanding and, consequently, level of
ambivalence about the subject. In addition to university course work, the department of

agriculture may occasionally organize debates for students on issues/topics surrounding

106

. biotechnology and its impact on food security and the environment. Panel discussions
and symposia may also be organized to discuss the issues and concerns about modern

biotechnology.

5.3.10 Summary of Findings Four

More than 60% of respondents said “Religious Concerns about Altering Nature"
had a “Low” to “Very Low” impact on their perceptions of bioengineered food

innovations.

5.3.9 Discussion: Four

The CIA World Fact Book (2005) indicates that Christians (63%) and Moslems
(16%) together constitute nearly 80% of Ghana’s population However, the results of this
study show that religious concerns about biotechnology’s ability to alter nature had very
little impact on KNUST agricultural science students. When it comes to religion and
biotechnology, Chapman (2001) explains that religious perspectives on genetics can offer
broad frameworks for understanding the moral issues necessary to deal with the
complexities of modern biotechnology. Religious organizations are known to influence
people’s perceptions of modern biotechnology in other places, but this influence appears
to be very minimal amongst respondents in this study. I

Chapman (2001) claims that when dealing with issues related to modern
biotechnology, theologians and ethicists can draw on centuries, or even millennia of
reflections about the nature of the person, human relationships, and social
responsibilities. It has often been said that religious communities constitute historical

traditions of moral wisdom, and thus provide the ethical background for understanding

107

and interpreting embedded social morality (Campbell, 2001). But Chapman (2001)
contends that, in contrast to the radical individualism so prevalent in today’s society,
most religious traditions have a concept that considers human beings as merely social and
interdependent beings with a commitment to the common good. The genetic revolution
offers both a challenge and an opportunity to religious communities: a challenge to apply
values and frameworks to new and unprecedented issues and an opportunity to help
interpret and illuminate significant ethical choices before members and the wider society
(Chapman, 2001). The challenge in Ghana and most of Africa is how to get religious
leaders involved in an educated debate on biotechnology issues. To be actively involved
in the biotechnology debate requires a deeper understanding of the subject. While it is
commonplace for some commentators to assume that religious communities or thinkers
have positions based on their heritage that they can readily apply to biotechnology,
Chapman (2001) contends that is clearly not the case. One theologian argued that in
discussing the subject of modern biotechnology (e.g., cloning), it is practically impossible
to directly apply religious tradition that has been worked out over centuries of cultural
shift as though it were a cook book to a new discovery (Chapman, 2001, p. 113). Written
within the context of pre-scientific societies, the foundational text of most religious
communities does not speak directly to the ethical dilemmas raised by biotechnology
(Chapman, 2001). Philosophical, ethical and theological concepts that were relevant to
the intellectual milieu of past centuries do not easily illuminate the interpretation and
analysis of contemporary science (Chapman, 2001, p. 113).

It would be erroneous to say or believe that religion does not play a part in

shaping the biotechnology debate in Ghana. One possible reason why religious concerns

108

about altering nature had a “Low” to “Very Low” impact on respondents’ perceptions of
bioengineered food innovations may be lack of knowledge about the subject among

Ghanaian religious leaders themselves.

5.3.11 Recommendations Four

To shape a meaningful and effective moral response to the genetics revolution,
religious thinkers must dig deeper into scientific literature on the subject of modern
biotechnology. The seminaries could do more by organizing debates, lecture series and
seminars on the subject of modern biotechnology (e. g., the ethics of modern
biotechnology and implications for Africa or Ghana). Also, religious leaders need to
educate themselves more on current and future trends in biotechnology by using the mass
media, books and scientific journals as a source of information. A collaborative linkage
founded on open discussions and exchange of ideas regarding modern biotechnology
needs to be forged between religions thinkers and the scientific community both in Ghana

and abroad.

5.3.12 Summary of Findings Five

The study results indicate that a greater majority (more than 60%) said, “Fear of
Genes Moving Unchecked to other Plants, Insects or Microorganisms,” “Fear of “Food
Safety Consequences” and “Fear of Harm to the Environment” had either “High” or

“Very High” impact on their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

5.3.13 Discussion Five

The study results obtained regarding the influence of gene movements between

plants, insects and microorganisms and also potential harm to the environment show that

109

respondents have serious concerns about bioengineered food innovations. These concerns
expressed by respondents may perhaps be due to the perception that there are not enough
researchers in the various institutions charged with biotechnology oversight in Ghana.
When dealing with the introduction and implementation of modern agricultural
biotechnologies in a country, lack of adequately trained researchers to drafi and
implement appropriate biosafety regulations can generate fear and concern among the
public. The findings from this study suggest such fears among at least 60% of
respondents surveyed. In most of Sub-Saharan Africa for instance, very few people are
trained to carryout modern biotechnology research. Most tertiary institutions in Africa
have the fundamentals of modern biotechnology (i.e. cell biology and tissue culture
training) either completely missing in their curricula or at an infant stage. The few
institutions that offer cell biology and tissue culture techniques are also constrained by
lack of adequate laboratory facilities/equipments, well trained faculty to deliver the
program or lack the necessary finances to sustain their programs. Even though the
literature in this thesis points to numerous potential applications of modern biotechnology
in Africa, the focus of biotechnology research in Ghana and most of Africa appears to be
on traditional biotechnology with little or no work done in the area of modern
biotechnology. Given the sophistication and financial costs associated with modern
biotechnology, the decision by most African nations to keep their biotechnology
programs at the traditional level makes sense, but this is not without costs. With the
exception of South Africa and Egypt and a few other African countries that have the
capacity to undertake modern biotechnology research, the majority of African countries

simply focus their research efforts on traditional biotechnology research. Countries that

110

focus entirely on traditional biotechnology may suffer the consequences of continued
dependency on countries with well developed modern biotechnology programs.

The growing numbers of local, regional and international conferences held in
Africa on modern biotechnology since 1990 indicate that a majority of Afiican countries
have an interest in modern biotechnology research. Clearly, the will to become a part of .
the gene revolution is there, but the means are yet to be firmly established in Africa.

In contrast to the situation in Africa, the “African Regional Conference for
International Cooperation on Safety in Biotechnology” held in Zimbabwe in 1993
concluded that unlike their African counterparts, most Asian countries have a national
policy and well defined research programs in modern biotechnology, as well as

collaborative links with overseas experts.

5.3.14 Recommendations Five

Training of biotechnology researchers must be a well rounded process in that
trained biotechnologists must be conversant with issues on biosafety, intellectual property
rights and the ethics of biotechnology applications. Designing a well rounded modern
biotechnology training program in African universities and research centers will equip
future change agents with the necessary tools needed to improve the overall food system
in Africa. Future change agents will then be better positioned to design national
biotechnology policies and also provide the leadership needed to implement them. While
it is important that the public in a country maintain some level of confidence in scientists
and researchers, confidence must be earned. For example, the real threat faced by most
African countries is the lack of well trained scientists to design and implement

regulations which would allow for field-testing of organisms. Who would argue that

111

poorly trained biotechnologist should not be trusted? Modified organisms can pose a real
threat to humans and the environment. Oduwo (1993) argues that, that in most cases,
populations in developing countries (like their scientists) are not as well informed as
those in developed countries; hence, their inability to apply pressure or challenge planned
biotechnology applications that have the potential to harm the environment and humans.
Adequate access to current information on biotechnology advances in other countries is
necessary to inform the masses of current and future trends of the technology. Breaking
down the barriers posed by information asymmetry between developed and developing
countries will facilitate the inclusion of Africa countries in the gene revolution.
Participation in international conferences and seminars on modern biotechnology is one
excellent way of obtaining current information and gaining knowledge on the subject;
however, African countries must be willing to invest in these avenues.
A collaborative regional program needs to be forged between nation states

(e.g., Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, and Togo). Once this program is
in place, together the member states could seek supplementary funding from international
donor agencies (e. g., USAID, UNESCO, The World Bank, etc.) for training and other
needs. Establishing a collaborative linkage with regional and international experts and
also involving the private sector in biotechnology research is key to the success of
biotechnology research in Africa.

In terms of specific areas of training, experts suggest that deve10ping nations
interested in enhancing their modern biotechnology programs should focus on:
microbiology, plant biology, cell biology, virology, genetics, biochemistry, molecular

biology and the ethics of biotechnology. From an operational stand point, however,

112

experts suggest that a new national biotechnology program must first and foremost focus

on microbiological, cell and tissue culture as well as biochemical/molecular techniques.

5.4 OBJECTIVE 3: To Determine KNUST Students’ Perceptions Regarding
Government Efforts in Instituting Appropriate Frameworks Aimed at Facilitating

the Adoption and Implementation of Bioengineered Food Innovations in Ghana.

5.4.1 Summary of Findings One

Nearly all (90%) respondents said they either “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that
the “Ghanaian Government Should Require Labeling of Transgenic Plant and Animal

Products.”

5.4.2 Discussion One

The above findings indicate how respondents perceive agricultural biotechnology
and govemment’s role in ensuring human and environmental safety. It is interesting that
nearly all respondents surveyed would like to see the Ghanaian government enforce
labeling of biotechnology products. This result is consistent with findings in most
developed countries. A recent study in the United States found that an astonishing 92% of
respondents favored labeling of GM products (Wimberley, Reynolds, Vander Mey,
Wells, Ejimakor, Burrneister, Harris, et al. (2003). Michigan State University
distinguished professor Lawrence Busch claims that “rarely is such level of consensus
found on any issue” (Busch, 2004, p. 33). Even though some industry spokespersons
have argued that labeling may be viewed by the public as a warning about potentially
dangerous substances, Busch (2004) contends that regulations would enhance public

confidence in new products. Busch (2004) further explains that any campaign to avoid

113

regulations such as labeling will make it appear as though the biotechnology industry has
something to hide.

The concerns raised by nearly 90% of KNU ST respondents regarding labeling
appear to be the heart of the European Union (EU) and the United States’ GM labeling
legislations. As far as labeling of GM products are concerned, both the EU and the US
face essentially the same challenges in terms of the food supply and safety however they
both have very different approaches/policies with respect to the introduction of
bioengineered food innovations. It has been argued that substantial regulatory differences
between the US and the EU in the area of biotechnology have been apparent for nearly
two decades. While the US has moved from a strict regulatory stance since the early
19805 to one that is considered more permissive, the EU has changed over during the
same period from a less to a more conservative and cautious regulatory approach
(Patterson and J osling, 2001). In short, the US adopts what is known as the substantial
equivalent approach while the EU adopts a more precautionary regulatory approach to
products of bioengineered food innovations.

Table 25 presents the fundamental differences in US and EU labeling legislation.

Table25: Alternative Models of Biotechnology Regulation in the US and EU

 

 

Precautionary Preventive
'3' Proactive regulatory '20 Reactive regulatory approach
approach
Philosophy of . . . . 02° Attempts to minimize
Regulation 0.0 Anticrpates envrronmental envrronmental harm whenever
hazards not currently the exrstence of harm has been
documented but which could scientifically demonstrated.
conceivably occur.
B . 02° Based on process by which °2° Based on safety, quality, and
3818 of .
Regulation product 18 produced efficacy of product regardless of

method of production

 

114

 

Precautionary Preventive

 

Horizontal Regulation Vertical Regulation
0:0 Cross-cutting regulations °2° Existing sectoral regulations
T need to be adopted to insure a modified to insure human and
ype of . .
R . basrc level of human and envrronmental safety of new
egulatron . .
envrronmental safety biotech products.

 

Source: Patterson and Josling, (2001)

Many researchers believe that the two models presented in Table 25 are at the
heart of the major differences in biotechnology regulation in the US and the EU. While
the first model represents a regulatory paradigm that is process-based, horizontal, and
precautionary, the second represents a more traditional product-based, vertical,
preventive approach. In most cases, aspects of both models have played a role in the
development of biotechnology regulations in both the US and the EU (Patterson and
J osling, 2001). According to Kershen (2003), the EU for example defends its “process-
based” labeling on the grounds that it honors the consumer’s right to know, and for
reasons that consumers’ will gain confidence in agricultural biotechnology. Another
reason cited for mandatory labeling is that it facilitates efficient monitoring of
agricultural biotechnology foods, including product recalls if and when necessary. Lastly,
it is argued that mandatory labels respect the ethical concerns of consumers by providing
them the information upon which they can choose foods that accord with their ethical
frameworks Kershen (2003). Kershen (2003) explains that a major difference between the
EU and US with respect to GM labeling is that, while the US is willing to place the
burden of responsibility on a free and fair market to decide consumer acceptability of
biotechnology foods, the EU on the other hand does not seem to trust that a free market

will work in the case of GM foods. While the US can use the same reasons outlined

115

above to justify its product labeling, it still remains debatable which strategy (product or

process) affords consumers the most protection.

5.4.3 Recommendations One

It is not certain how the two regulatory principles presented in Table 25 will affect
labeling of GM products in developing countries; however African countries specifically
Ghana have a lot to learn from both the EU and US approach. Developing countries may
either design their own distinct labeling legislation or adapt a pre-existing legislation
(either precautionary-EU or substantial equivalent-US). It has been argued that social and
philosophical differences resulting from different historical, political and cultural
experiences define GM labeling legislation in developed countries. Thus simply adopting
GM legislation from a more advanced country might not necessarily present a perfect fit
for African countries. While it may appear logical to simply copy pre-existing GM
legislation from a more advanced country, African nations needs to seriously consider
both short and long term implications of coping versus designing their own. Regardless
of which type of legislation that is adopted/adapted, developing countries need to study
how GM regulations have evolved overtime in other countries. What led to the evolution?
What are the implications both local and international? What has been accomplished etc.?
African countries will need to develop labeling regulations that will first and foremost
meet local conditions/needs while at the same time keep them active within the global
economy.

The implications of the findings in this study may reflect in future policy

decisions regarding GM labeling in Ghana because how well future GM labeling policies

116

address local, regional and global needs will depends on how much the future change

agents (i.e. KNU ST and other college students) are exposed to the subject.

5.4.4 Summary of Findings Two

A greater majority of respondents (60%) either “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”
with the statement that “Ghana Has in Place the Essential Bio-Safety Legislation to
Receive GM Crops from Abroad.” Similarly, majority of respondents 60% either
“Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” with the statement that Ghana has “Enough Qualified

Persons to Test Transgenic Crops.”

5.4.5 Discussion Two

Like most African countries, Ghana has had a relatively long history of traditional
biotechnology research, especially in agriculture yet their human and natural resource
base still remains weak compared to the tasks that need to be performed in modern
biotechnology. From the literature reviewed in this thesis, it is apparent that most African
countries suffer the same plight because their biotechnology industry appears to be
defined by a lack of adequately trained biotechnologists, and also lack of equipment and
adequate facilities to conduct modern biotechnology research. Clearly, African countries
have an interest in modem biotechnology; however, their interest is yet to be transformed
into a vibrant biotechnology sector. Tedla and Berhe (1995) explain that scientific
research and technological innovations are essential for sustaining and accelerating rapid
development of developing nations. For agricultural biotechnology to fulfill its promise

of providing food security in Africa and elsewhere, it will require private-public

117

collaboration and government support of universities and research institutions in order to
produce high quality and technically competent scientist.

“More perhaps than any other technology except for nuclear fusion,
biotechnology derives from university science” (Avramovic, 1996, p. 34). It is therefore
appropriate to say that modern agricultural biotechnology is mostly research intensive,
and dependent for its success on high quality research personnel. For example,
Avramovic (1996) points out that since 1985, all the seminal discoveries in modern
biotechnology have come from universities or research institutions, not large firms. The
success of the biotechnology industry in developed countries may thus be attributed to
government support for major universities and research institutions through funding and
other logistical aid. A major hindrance to biotechnology development in Afiica is the
disconnect between university scientists/researchers and national policy makers. For
example J uma and Mugabe (1996) noted that formulation of public policy is undertaken
by very few people, mainly within government, with very little or no university or private
sector participation in these processes. Juma and Mugabe (1996) add that drafts of policy
documents are rarely made available for comments outside the relevant government
agencies because the political systems generally do not allow public participation in
matters of national concern. According to Chetsanga (1993), East Asian countries, unlike
their African counterparts have established linkages between private and public sector
bodies in their biotechnology programs. It is worth noting that Asian countries have
national policies and well-defined research programs in biotechnology to complement a

well developed collaborative linkage with technologically advanced nations.

118

. 5.4.6 Recommendations Two

One of the major challenges for most African nations interested in developing a
national modern biotechnology program is training of citizens in the relevant areas.
Currently, training of African biotechnologists is done by the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the Life Science Program of UNESCO (Woodward et al.
1999). It is believed that between 1990 and 1995, IITA trained about 50 African scientists
six of whom obtained a doctor of philosophy degree. Within the same period, UNESCO
also trained 180 scientists from 23 African countries in basic and advanced tissue culture
techniques, and application of molecular markers (Woodward et al. 1999). Without well-
trained researchers in Ghana there is bound to be increased ambivalence among the
public regarding the safety of biotechnology. Recruiting and training biotechnology
researchers and personnel requires the necessary financial and institutional
investments/commitments. For this reason, for Ghana and other African countries to be
part of the gene revolution, they must take the necessary steps including making available
funds for training, identifying the persons to be trained, where the training is to be take
place and finally make available incentives for the trainees to apply their knowledge at
home.

Lack of the opportunity to apply skills obtained in developed countries upon
returning home prevents most African students from returning home where their skills are
most needed. A probable solution to this problem will be to adopt “sandwich” training
programs where potential African biotechnologists/researchers receive parts of their
training regionally and part in more advance/developed countries. Adopting a “sandwich”

strategy will ensure that skills acquired have meaning and can be applied in a continental

119

and regional context. According to Woodward et al. (1999), some countries in Afiica
now send their students for training in South Afiican universities in the hope that
graduates will be more willing to return to their home-countries at the end of their
programs. While the applicability of skills acquired fi'om more advanced countries may
not be readily observed, such skills in the long-run will help inforrrr developing country
biotechnologists of the present and future trends within the field of biotechnology. A well
informed scientist will be better positioned to advice government about which areas of
biotechnology are relevant both for present and future investment purposes.

In all biotechnology applications, the appropriate biosafety protocol needs to be in
place before the final product of the technology is passed onto consumers. Putting in
place appropriate safety protocols will boost public confidence in the technology.
Currently, only 5 out of 53 countries in Africa have official regulations governing the
commercial release and distribution of transgenic seeds (Kent, 2004). The lack of
appropriate regulations in 48 countries: either their complete absence or their impractical
nature according to Kent (2004) is the biggest single barrier to the development of
commercial biotechnology products (seeds) in developing countries. At present, the
benefits of modern biotechnology advances are minimal in developing countries partly
due to beauraucratic procedures involved in evaluation and approval procedures. To
change this situation, Kent (2004) suggests that the US and other developed country
governments need to encourage the development of a more appropriate regulation in
developing countries, through projects such as USAID’s new Program for Biosafety
Systems (PBS). Also, developing nations need to actively seek and forge collaborative

linkages that will allow them to benefit directly from programs such as USAID’s PBS.

120

Specifically, developing countries can benefit directly by adapting preexisting models of
regulations to their specific needs. Additionally, African countries need to embark on
their own awareness and educational campaigns and if need be appeal to international
and donor agencies to complement their efforts in training and raising awareness in
specific areas of modern biotecnology.

Developing country governments need to provide the staff within their Ministry
of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Services with training on risk assessments
and management within the framework of biotechnology. This could be done through
organized regional workshops where collaborators and modern biotechnology experts
from both developed and developing countries converge to discuss region specific issues
and craft long and short term action plans. These training programs and workshops can
also serve as a platform for raising awareness and addressing relevant biosafety concerns.
Previous studies on the safety of specific biotechnologies, e.g., Bt technology, may be
analyzed as part of a regional workshop/training package. Thorough analysis of previous
bio safety research studies (on specific biotechnology products) will allow developing
countries to question the safety of specific biotechnology applications and their
implications in a local and regional context. In the US, for example, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), USDA, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carryout
extensive studies before products are released onto the market. Some of these
reports/studies are made available to the public and may be obtained and studied.

Unlike most developed countries, in most of Africa, the public is rarely involved
in decision making on issues such as modern biotechnology applications. Very little

thought is given to the fact that decisions made on biotechnology applications may pose

121

risks to the public and their environment. J urna and Mugabe (1996) contend that these
methods of policy design and implementation need serious reconsideration/revision in
order for African countries to benefit from modern agricultural biotechnology. Due to
uncertainties associated with biotechnology, it is recommended that African countries
institute appropriate biosafety standards that would allow screening of transgenic crops
and animals received from abroad. Such mechanisms, according to Wafula (1999),
should encompass developing adequate risk assessments strategies for biotechnological
products, and mechanisms and instruments for monitoring use and compliance in order to
minimize harmful effects to the environment and humans. A more inclusive or
participatory approach to policy design and implementation is needed to close the
institutional gap in Africa and boost public confidence in modern biotechnology.
Borrowing from Wafula ( 1999), one way to ensure full involvement in the biotechnology
debates is to require or ensure, through training programs, increased technical expertise
among mid and high-level positions in ministries and research institutes. While these
individuals may play strategic roles in cultivating extensive international contacts needed
to augment local and regional expertise, Wafula (1999) adds that they may also provide
the capacity for technical analysis, critical review of information, consultation, and peer

review.

122

5.5 OBJECTIVE 4: To Determine Sources of Information used by KNUST Students
in Establishing their Knowledge and Perceptions Regarding Bioengineered Food

Innovations.

The fourth objective was to describe sources of information used in obtaining
information on bioengineered food innovations and how these sources impact

respondents’ knowledge and perceptions of modern agricultural biotechnology.

5.5.1 Summary of Findings One (a)

About 90% or more respondents on average said they either “Occasionally” or
“Always” utilize “University Coursework,” “Scientific Journals” and “Television” to
gain information on biotechnology. More than 80% of respondents said they either
“Occasionally” or “Always” used “Internet,” “Technical Publications/Reports” and
“Newspaper” to obtain information on bioengineered food innovations. More than 70%
said they either “Occasionally” or “Always” used “Radio” and “Popular Magazines” to
gain information on bioengineered food innovations. An average of 61% of respondents
said they “Occasionally” to “Always” used “Non-Governmental Organizations” and
“Extension/Govemment Services” to gain information on bioengineered food

innovations.

5.5.2 Summary of Findings One (b)

When respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they hear something
about bioengineered food innovations from selected sources, the results obtained were
nearly the same as those obtained in section 5.5.1. Only “Non—Governmental

Organizations” and “Extension/Government Services” produced different results. On

123

average, 65% of respondents said they “Occasionally” to “Always” hear something about
biotechnology from “Non-Governmental Organizations” and “Extension/Govemment

compared to 61% who said used these sources to seek information on the subject.

5.5.3 Summary of Findings One (c)

It is not surprising that almost 95% of respondents said “Knowledge from Science

,9

Classes “Occasionally” to “Always” impact their perceptions of bioengineered food
innovations. The results obtained above indicate that university course work is use the
most in obtaining knowledge about modern agricultural biotechnology. The findings also
show that, on average for 80% of respondents, “University Professors Beliefs about
Biotechnology,” “Experience in Science Laboratories,” “Publicly Accepted Attitudes
towards Biotechnology” and “Friends' Beliefs about Biotechnology” “Occasionally” or
“Always” impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations. With respect to
“Family and Religious Beliefs about Biotechnology,” the results depict that

approximately 66% of respondents said these issues either “Occasionally” or “Always”

impact their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations.

5.5.4 Discussion One

The findings indicate that KNUST agricultural science students mostly use,
“University Coursework” and “Knowledge from Science Classes” to gain information
about bioengineered food innovations. This result is not surprising because the structure
of KNUST agricultural science program mandates that students take certain core science
classes and attend laboratory sections, some of which touch on the subject of modern

agricultural biotechnology. In contrast to the findings in this study, Hoban (2003), found

124

that most people in developed countries including the United States get their information
on biotechnology from media coverage. In a similar study done by Fritz et al. (2003),
“Newspapers” emerged as the most popular media source use by both adults (73.8%) and
undergraduates (76.7%) for information on biotechnology in the United States. The
authors also found that the Internet was cited as another important source by 58.9% of
adults and 58.2% of the undergraduates (Fritz et al. 2003). Hagedorn and Allender-
Hagedom (1995) also found that 25% of respondents in the United States felt they
understood introductory science concepts and indicated that most of their information on
biotechnology comes from television (90%) and newspaper (80%) sources. It is however
encouraging to find that Scientific Journals,” ”Television” and the “Internet” are ofien
used by most respondents in this study. While most scientific/electronic journals may
contain very specific and credible information on bioengineered food innovations, the
intemet in a broad sense may contain much information most of which might not be
credible and thus will need further verification. Even though “Extension/Government
Services” may be very useful in informing students about agricultural biotechnologies,
this particular medium is least used. A reason for this may be the structure of Ghana’s
agricultural extension program, which lacks adequate agricultural extension personnel
thus making it impossible for extension staff to share field knowledge with students even
if they possess the knowledge.

Bauer, Durant and Gaskell (1998) hypothesize that the degree of public
engagement is dependent upon the degree of professional engagement with modern
biotechnology issues in any particular country. It is believed that perceptions and degree

of understandings of agricultural biotechnology in most developed countries is strongly

125

. influenced by the type of information provided by the media, confidence in governmental
safeguards, and cultural preferences (Hoban, 2003). According to Bauer et al. (1998)
countries that are earlier entrants into the policy and media debate are those with
relatively more “mature” public debates about modern biotechnology. The authors define
maturity in this context to mean either that there is a “natural” trajectory of public debate
about biotechnology or that earlier entrants are somehow more informed and, for that
reason, maintain a higher standard of public debate. Earlier entrants may be classified as
countries in which the public domain has had a greater opportunity to experience, learn
about, deliberate on, display extensive and wide ranging public discourses and possibly
come to hold clear views about modern biotechnology (Bauer et al. 1998).

Hoban (1999) explains that due to incomprehensible responses from scientist
working on biotechnology, the mass media has become the major public source of
information on the subject. Findings from this study indicate otherwise. Relatively few
respondents use media sources to obtain information on modern agricultural
biotechnology in Ghana. Generally, the media in both technologically advanced and
developing nations have the tendency to present sensational and new stories (Hoban,
2002) resulting in biased coverage of issues that only appeal to or arouse the public’s
concems (Wingenbach et al. 2004). While it is a fairly accurate assertion that the
Ghanaian media currently play a limited role in shaping public perceptions of
biotechnology in Ghana, this role will increase with increased adoption of modern
biotechnology in Ghana. Ensuring that students use a wide range of information sources

to gain knowledge about the modern biotechnology issues will allow KNUST students

126

and the public at large to critically evaluate media publications and not be swayed by

sensational coverage.

5.5.5 Recommendations One

The results obtained in this study indicate that information on agricultural
biotechnology is provided mostly through university coursework. In most cases
university course work may be deemed more credible in terms of providing accurate and
unbiased information on the subject. If perceptions are developed from knowledge gained
in science classes, laboratories, and interactions with biotechnology scientists, students
may have a clear and better understanding of the issue at stake (Wingenbach et al. 2004).
Compared to most developed countries, the free media in Ghana is relative new.
However, with a rapidly growing mass media, it is possible that the media will become
much more influential in shaping biotechnology perceptions among the public in the next
five to ten years.

Gaskell et al. (1996), assert that knowledge is an important determinant of support
for science and technology. Therefore, the more informed the public the more likely they
are to be supportive of bioengineered food innovations. Low knowledge of basic
agricultural and biological sciences in Ghana and most of Afiica adds to the
misinformation already existent on the subject of modern biotechnology. This lack of
understanding according to Hoban (2003) generates concern, especially when coupled
with negative media coverage. Win genbach et al. (2004) contend that understanding the
science of biotechnology will increase students’ confidence in communicating these
issues in future careers. Therefore, it is recommended that educators in KNUST and other

secondary and tertiary institutions evaluate the depth and clarity of their science

127

curriculum in order to ensure true understanding and knowledge transfer to students. To
be able to critically analyze media stories on biotechnology will require substantial
knowledge about the subject. Deep knowledge of modern biotechnology can only come
through using a range of information sources namely, intemet, scientific journals, course
work, participation in workshops, etc. Students ”and faculty need to be active participants

in local, regional and international conferences on modern agricultural biotechnology.

5.6 OBJECTIVE 5: To Describe How Different Sources of Information Influence

Respondents’ Self Perceived Knowledge of Bioengineered Food Innovations.

5.6.1 Summary of Findings

The final objective of this study determined how different information sources
and experiences influence KNUST agricultural science students’ self perceived
knowledge of bioengineered food innovations. When self-perceived knowledge was
correlated (through cross tabulations) with all other variables in the questionnaire, of
thirteen variables, as depicted in Tables 13 through 21, were found to be significant (p<
0.05) in influencing respondents’ self-perceived knowledge of bioengineered food
innovations. Upon further statistical analysis using Probit and Logit models, only four
variables were found to significantly increase respondents’ self perceived knowledge
from “Low” to “High” when used in isolation. Using Probit and Logit models, the extent
to which “Internet,” “Radio,” and “Newspapers” were used in seeking information on
biotechnology was found to significantly increase respondents self perceived knowledge
from “Low” to “High.” Similarly, Friends’ Beliefs about biotechnology were also found

to significantly (p< 0.05) increase self-perceived knowledge from “Low” to “High.”

128

A comparison of “Low” and “High” self perceived knowledge respondents show
that respondents who said their knowledge was “Low” also said their fiiends’ beliefs
“Never” impacted their perceptions of bioengineered food innovations (“Low” = 20.14%
compared to “High” = 10.95%). A greater percentage of respondents who said their self
perceived knowledge was “High” also said their fiiends’ beliefs about bioengineered
food innovations “Always” influenced their perceptions (“High” = 2.47% compared to
“Low” = 1.06%).

Comparatively, a greater percentage of “High” self perceived knowledge
respondents relative to “Low” knowledge respondents said it was “Very Important” for
bioengineered food innovations research to focus on control of released genes into the
environment. On the other hand, a greater percentage of “Low” knowledge respondents,
relative to “High” knowledge respondents believe it is “Not at all Important” for
bioengineered food innovations research to focus on control of released genes into the

environment.

5.6.2 Discussion

Even though tables 13 through 21 indicate that “Internet,” “Technical
Publications/Reports,” “University Course Work,” “Scientific Journals,” Knowledge
From Science Classes” and “Friends’ Beliefs about Biotechnology” were all significant
in shaping respondents self-perceived knowledge of bioengineered food innovations, it is
surprising that only four out of thirteen variables were significant in the Probit and Logit
models. To broaden students’ knowledge of bioengineered food innovations, it is
important that all the other variables included in Tables 13 through 21 be seriously

considered as potentially useful sources of information on modern biotechnology.

129

5.6.3 Recommendations

In a 2004 study involving 11 land grant universities in 10 states in the US,
Wingenbach et al. (2004) found that 84% of fiiture agricultural science students
(communicators) involved in the study believed their level of scientific knowledge was
average to high, and 24% believed they had “above-average” scientific knowledge. The
authors also found a positive correlation between experience in agriculture and
respondents’ knowledge of biotechnology. Even though Wingenbach et al. (2004) claim
that the difference between perception and reality may be debatable, the authors contend
in their study, students’ perceived and actual knowledge of biotechnology was not
debatable. It is thus recommended that KNUST agricultural science students (future
agricultural communicators and change agents) interact with others involved in science
and biotechnology research. Options that might be considered may include student
internships, field experience (also known as vacation trainings) that focus on agricultural
biotechnology training and workshops, visits to biotechnology research stations/firms and
agencies, experimental farms and other organizations undertaking biotechnology
research.

5.7 Conclusion

Determining knowledge and perception levels of biotechnology among KNUST
students and then providing relevant information on the subject through the appropriate
channels will help reduce the degree of uncertainty regarding acceptance or rejection of
bioengineered food innovations among students. The theoretical framework presented in
chapter one explains that through communication, participants involved in diffusion of

innovations (change agent and client) create and share information with one another in

130

order to reach a mutual understanding. This thesis provides KNUST students with
information on modern agricultural biotechnology so that they may make informed
choices in the future regarding issues related to modern agricultural food innovations.

Ghanaian college students, including those from KNUST, are the future change
agents (policy makers and opinion leaders). It follows that if opinion leaders/change
agents are to be recognized by their peers as competent and trustworthy experts regarding
an innovation, they should have ample knowledge about the innovation. According to
Rogers (2003), opinion leaders often have greater exposure to mass media, are more
cosmopolitan and have higher socio-economic status than their followers. Also, change
agents have the responsibility of reviewing the practical applications of an innovation,
adopting or rejecting the innovation before their followers are exposed to them. KNUST
students fit perfectly the description of future change agents described above. In order for
KNUST students to effectively play the role of change agents of modern agricultural
biotechnology, they will need to employ a wide range of information sources and
communication channels in seeking the relevant knowledge. The Probit and Logit models
presented in chapter four indicate that respondents who used “Internet,” “Newspaper,”
“Radio,” and “Friends’ Beliefs about Biotechnology” were more likely to proclaim high
self perceived knowledge of modern agricultural biotechnology. It may be inferred from
the theoretical framework that most developing countries, including Ghana, are currently
at the “Knowledge,” “Persuasion” and “Decision” stage of modern agricultural
biotechnology innovations where mass media and interpersonal channels appear to be the
most important channels of information. Mass media channels are relatively more

important at the knowledge stage, while interpersonal channels are more important at the

131

persuasion stages in the innovation-decision process (Rogers, 2003). The Probit-Logit

9,

results regarding the significance of “Internet, “Newspaper,” “Radio,” as
communication channels are in line with Rogers’ recommended information channels for
the knowledge stage. “Friends’ Beliefs about Biotechnology,” constitutes an
interpersonal communication channel which ismost important at the persuasion stage in
the innovation-decision process.

It may be concluded from the Probit-Logit models that “Internet,”
“Newspaper,” and “Radio” sources are the communication channels used the most by
KNUST students to obtain information on agricultural biotechnology. The theoretical
framework presented in chapter one suggests that these communication channels are most
appropriate for facilitating information flow at the “Knowledge,” “Persuasion” and
“Decision” stages of an innovation in this case modern biotechnology. Even though
“Journal Articles” were not significant in the models, they are most likely the most
obj ective/unbiased and reliable source of information on modern agricultural
biotechnology and are highly recommended for use by KNUST agricultural science
students.

KNUST students, by virtue of their educational backgrounds, fit perfectly the
description of innovators and early adopters described in Rogers’ adopter categories in
Table 26. Like other college students in Ghanaian universities, there is some degree of
interaction between KNU ST agricultural science students and university faculty and

researchers. Generally, Ghanaian college students have the capacity to access various

sources of information. Therefore, they can play a key role in shaping the biotechnology

132

. debate in Ghana. Table 26 presents the Roger’s adoption categories and their
characteristics.

Table 26: Rogers Adopter Categories and Characteristics

 

Adopter Category Characteristics

 

0
0.0

Venturesome and eager to try new ideas
Have more years of formal education

Have higher social status

Have substantial financial resources

Able to cope with high degree of uncertainty
Contacts outside peer group

May or may not be respected by peers

.0

1) Innovators

.0

0
0.0

'0

.0

- First 2.5% of individuals in
a social system
to adopt an irmovation

0
.0

0

0
.0

0

’0

’0

0
.0

0

2) Early Adopters Respected by peers
More integrated part of the local system

Opinion leaders - potential adopters look to them for advice and

’0

’0

0

- Next 13.5% of individuals

.0

in a social information
system to adopt an '3' Change agents
innovation °3° Role models for other members of social system

0

3) Early Majority

0

.0

Deliberate before adopting new idea

Adopt new ideas just before the average member of a system
Interact frequently with peers

Rarely hold positions of opinion leadership

Provide interconnectedness in the system's interpersonal networks

0
.0

0
0.0

- Next 34% of individuals in
a social system
to adopt an innovation

0

0
0.0

0

4) Late Majority

0

.0

Approach innovations with caution and skepticism

Adopt new ideas just afler the average member of a system
Adoption may be due to economic necessity or peer pressure
Unwillingness to risk scarce resources

Uncertainty about innovation must be removed before adoption

0
0.0

’0

- Next 34% of individuals in
a social system
to adopt an innovation

’0

.0

0
0.0

.0

5) Laggards

.0

Hold on to traditional values

Resistance to innovations

Last to adopt an innovation

Near isolates in the social networks of local system
Suspicious of innovations and change agents

0
.0

0

0
0.0

- Last 16% of individuals in a
social system
to adopt an innovation

’0

.0

0
.0

0

 

Source: Winnie Tsang-Kosma: http://www2.gsu.edu/~mstswh/courses/it7000/papers/rogers'.htm

5.8 Recommendations for Further Research

1.) It is recommended that future research monitor trends in student perceptions
by replicating this study over regular intervals in major universities in Ghana and across
other developing countries in Africa. When dealing with biotechnology, it is extremely

important that researchers and national leaders understand what people truly think and

133

want to know about this science. Future research of this nature should include a “simple
straightforward” knowledge test sections. Knowledge tests will enable researchers to
explore relationships between respondents’ self perceived knowledge and actual
knowledge using correlations, cross-tabulations or appropriate statistical tools. It is
important to establishing the exact nature of the relationship between students’ actual and
perceived knowledge because this may be incorporated in the science curricula design
aimed at expanding students’ knowledge of science and modern biotechnology.

2.) Future research studies should explore how socio-cultural and economic
characteristics influence respondents’ perceptions of risk associated with modern
agricultural biotechnology. Due to different socio-cultural and economic experiences,
perceptions and acceptance of health and environmental risks associated with modern
biotechnology may vary across countries. Harsh socio-economic conditions in most
developing countries are likely to overshadow the perceived risks of agricultural
biotechnology. At best, the risks of agricultural biotechnology may be considered
abstract. Further research in this area may involve the use of Logistic Regression models
or the Logit/Probit models to predict respondents’ perceptions of risks. Like the Probit-
Logit models used in predicting KNUST students’ self-perceived knowledge about
biotechnology, a Logistic Regression model may be used to predict risk perception based
on whether respondents agree or disagree with various statements related to risks
associated with modern biotechnology. This analysis has the advantage of broadening the
scope of future research by incorporating perceptions of risk into general perceptions of

modern biotechnology.

134

3) It is recommended that future research include non-agricultural science
students. Due to the different levels of exposure to modern biotechnology and also the
different information channels used in obtaining knowledge about biotechnology, it is
possible that non-agricultural science students will perceive modern biotechnology
differently from agricultural students. Further research is needed to validate this claim
and to uncover the information gaps.

4) Future studies must also target current policy makers and government officials
(current change agents) in Ghana. It is important to know how they perceive
biotechnology, if possible their actual knowledge levels and also the sources of
information most frequently used to obtain information on the subject.

5) It is recommended that a comparative study be undertaken to determine
differences in biotechnology perception between the current study group (KNUST or
other similar populations) and non-agricultural science students and policy makers. Such
a study may also investigate the differences in the information channels/sources used and

the degree to which they are used by each of the study groups.

135

BIBLIOGRAPGHY

Aemi, P. (2002). Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Center of
International Development (CID), Harvard University and Southern Africa Labor
and Development Unit (SALDRU), University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Aemi, P. (2001). Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology in developing
countries: A comparison between Mexico and the Philippines.

Agyeman-Mensah, N. (1988). An examination of the nature and extent of rural women's
participation in income generating projects in Ghana. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

APO. (1994). Biotechnology applications in agriculture in Asia and the Pacific. Tokyo:
Asian Productivity Organization.

Associated Press. (2000). India Africa Keys to World Population Growth. Retrieved
06/30/2004, from http://www.enn.com/news/wire-
stories/2 000/ 06/ 06082000/ ap_indiapop_1 371 6.asp.

Avramovic, M. (1996). An affordable development? Biotechnology, economics and the

implications for the third world: "Compelling analysis realistic recommendation. ”
Atlantic Highlands, N.J. : Zed Books.

Ayalew, M. (1997). What is Food Security and Famine and Hunger? Internet Journal for
African Studies, 11(2).

Bauer, M. W., Durant, J. & Gaskell, G. (1998). Biology in the Public Sphere: A
Comparative Review. In Durant, Bauer, and Gaskell. (Ed.). Biotechnology in the
Public Sphere: A European Source Book. (pp. 217-228). Science Museum.
London: Cromwell Press.

Benner, G. D. (Ed.). (1985). Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House Company.

Blanchfield, R. (2004). Genetically Modified Foods in the EU including the UK.
Retrieved 08/ l 1, 2004, from http://www.jralphb.co.uk/gmodule.htm

Busch, L. (2004). Lessons unlearned: How biotechnology is changing society. Retrieved
12/ 12, 2004, from:
http ://nabc.cals.comell.edu/pubs/nabc1 5/chapters/Keynote_Address-Busch.pdf.

Campbell, C. (2001). Meaningfiil resistance: Region and biotechnology. In J. M. Hanson

(Ed.), Claiming power over life: Religion and biotechnology policy. (pp. 1-29).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

136

Chapman, R. A. (2001). Religious perspectives on biotechnology. In J. M. Hanson (Ed.),
Claiming power over life: Religion and biotechnology policy. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.

Chell, J. S. (1993). Plant biotechnology: State of the art in developed countries and
relevant safety considerations. Paper presented at the Afiican Regional

Conference for International Cooperation on Safety in Biotechnology, Harare,
Zimbabwe, October 11-14, 19993.

Chetsanga, C. J. (1993). State of the science: Biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paper
presented at the Proceedings; African Regional Conference for International
Cooperation on Safety in Biotechnology, Harare, Zimbabwe October 11-14,
19993.

CIA. (2005). CIA-The world fact book-Ghana retrieved on from:. Retrieved 06/ 12, 2005
from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gh.htm1#People

Clark, N. & J uma, C. (1991 ). Biotechnology for sustainable development: Policy options
for developing countries. Nairobi: African Center for Technology Studies
(ACTS).

Cleaver, K. & Schreiber, G. A. (1994). Reversing the Spiral: The population, agriculture
and environment nexus in sub-saharan Africa. Cited in Haggblade et al. 2003.
African agriculture: Past performance, future imperatives.

Corsini, J. R. (1999). The Dictionary of Psychology. Ann Arbor, MI:
BRUNNER/MAZEL-Taylor and Francis Group.

Curtis, K. M., McCluskey, J. J. & Wahl, T. I. (2004). Consumer acceptance of genetically
modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum, 7(1&2), 70-75.

DeVries, J. & Toenniessen, G. (2001). Securing the Harvest: Biotechnology, Breeding
and Seed Systems for African Crops. Willingford Oxon 8DE, UK: CABI
Publishing.

Disaster Relief, (2005). Disaster Relief. Retrieved 12/30/2005, from
http://www.disasterrelief.org/Library/Dictionary/index_txt.html.

Dittus, K. L. & Hillers, V. N. (1993). Consumer Trust and Behavior Related to
Pesticides. Food Technology (477), 87-89.

Duesterhaus, R. (1990). "Sustainability's promise." Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 45(1), 4.

ECOHEALTH, (2005). ECOHEALTH Glossary. Retrieved 12/30/2004 from
http://www.ecohealth101 .org/glossary.html.

137

FAO. (2004a). F ollow-up to the World Food Summit: Report on the progress in the
implementation of the plan of action. Paper presented at the Committee on World
Food Security, Rome. September 20-23, 2004.

FAO. (2004b). Newsroom: Focus on the issues. Retrieved 06/22/2004 from
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/Z004/41655/index.html.

FAO-AF WC. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management and
implications for certification and trade in Africa. Paper presented at the African
Forestry and Wildlife Commission, Lusaka, Zambia. March 27-30, 2000.

Fritz, S., Husmann, D., Wingenbach, G., Rutherford, T., Egger, V. & Wadhwa, P. (2003).
Awareness and acceptance of biotechnology issues among youth, undergraduates,
and adults. AgBioForum, 6(4), 178-184.

Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W. & John Durant. (1996). Public perceptions of biotechnology in
1996: Eurobarometer 46.1. In Durant, Bauer, and Gaskell. (Ed.). Biotechnology in
the Public Sphere: A European Source Book. (pp. 189—212). London: Cromwell
Press.

Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., & John Durant. (1998). The Representation of Biotechnology:
Policy, media and public perception. In Durant Bauer, and Gaskell (Ed.),
Biotechnologv in the public sphere: A European Source Book. (pp. 1-12).
London: Cromwell Press.

Genencor. (2005). Genecor Glossary. Retrieved 06/14/2005, from
www.genencor.com/wt/gcor/glossary

GeoHIVE. (2005). The population by continents, regions and countries. Retrieved
07/08/2005, from http://www.geohive.corn/global/geo.php?xm1= world&xsl =
pop_region

Gold, V. M. (1999). Sustainable agriculture: Definitions and terms. Retrieved
06/22/2004 from http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AF SIC _pubs/srb9902.htm

Goldstein, D. J. (1995). Third world biotechnology, Latin American development, and
the foreign debt problem: In Peritore and Galve-Peritore (Ed.), Biotechnology in
Latin America: Politics, impacts and risks. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly
Resources Inc. Imprint (SR Books).

Haggblade, 8., Hazel, P., Kirsten, I. & Mkandawire. African agriculture: Past
performance and future imperatives. Paper presented at the InWEnt, IF PR1,
NEPAD and CTA: Conference on "Successes in African Agriculture." Pretoria,
South Africa. December 01-03, 2003.

138

Hassebrook, C. & Hegyes, G. (1989). Choices for the heartland: Alternative directions in
biotechnology and implications for farming, rural communities and the
environment. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Hoban, J. T. (2003). Public concerns about biotechnology. In Serageldin & Persley (Ed).
Biotechnology and sustainable development: Voices of the South and North (pp.
279-288): CAB International.

Hoban, J. T. (2004). Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology. Unpublished
manuscript.

Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Adelaja, A., Schilling, B., & Hallman W. (2002). Uncovering
factors influencing public perceptions of food biotechnology. (Food Policy
Institute Working Paper Publication No. WP-0602-003.). New Jersey, NJ: The
State University of New Jersey RUTGERS.

Huesing, J ., & English, L. (2004). The impact of Bt crops on the developing world.
AgBioForum, 7( 1&2), 84-95.

Hunger Notes (2004). World Hunger Facts. Retrieved 5/06/2004, from
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger°/620facts%202002.h
trn.

J affe, W. R. (1993). Implementation of biosafety regulations: The experience in Latin
America. Paper presented at the African Regional Conference for International
Cooperation on Safety in Biotechnology, Harare, Zimbabwe. October 11-14,
19993.

J uma, C., & Mugabe, J. (1989). The gene hunters: Biotechnology and the scramble for
seeds. Zed Books, Princeton University Press, NJ.

J uma, C., & Mugabe, J. (1996). Biotechnology and policy-making capacity. In
Avramovic, M. (Ed.).

Kamaldeen, S., & Powell, A. D. (2000). Public perceptions of biotechnology. Food safety
network. (Technical Report #17). Department of Plant Agriculture, University of
Guelph.

Kelley, J. (1994). Public perceptions of genetic engineering: Australia, 1994. (Final
Report to the Department if Industry, Science and Technology). Canberra ACT:

The Australian National University.

Kent, L. (2004). What's the holdup? Addressing constraints to the use of plant
biotechnology in developing countries. AgBioForum, 7( (1&2)), 63-69.

139

. Kershen, D. L. (2003). Innovations in biotechnology-public perceptions and cultural
attitudes: An American view point. Global Jurist Topics, 3 (1) 1-22.

Lappe, M., & Bailey, B. (1998). Against the grain: Biotechnology and the corporate
takeover of your food. Monroe, MN: Common Courage Press.

Mahanti, S. (1998). Biotechnology-Origin and prospects. Retrieved 06/21/2004 from
http://www.vigyanprasar.com/wos/boitech.htrn.

Malthus, T. (1798). An essay on the principle of population, as it affects the future
improvement of society with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M.
Condorcet, and Other Writers. London: St. Paul's Church-Yard.

Mausberg, B., & Press-Merkur, M., (1995). The citizen’s guide to biotechnology.
Toronto: Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy.

Mugabe, J. (2004). Biotechnologv and sustainable development in Africa: Towards
regional consensus and common strategy. Paper presented at the African
Ministerial Conference on Science and Technology for Development.

Norusis, M. J. (2000). SPSS 10. 0: Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall Inc.

National Science Foundation (NSF) (2000). Science and engineering indicators. Cited in
Kamaldeen S., & Powell, A. D., 2000. Public perceptions of biotechnology. Food
safety network technical report #17.

Oduwo, R. N. (1993). An overview of biotechnology and agriculture in Kenya. Paper
presented at the African Regional Conference for International Cooperation on
Safety in Biotechnology, Harare, Zimbabwe.

OERL. (2004). OERL Definitions of terms. Retrieved 05/16/2004, from
http://oer1.sri.com/definitions.html.

Osei, W. A. (2003). Biotechnologu A solution for ending hunger in Ghana. Retrieved
01/02/2004 from
http://www.newsrunner.corn/ghanaweb/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID
= 46034.

Patterson, L. A., & Josling, T. (2001). Regulating biotechnology: Comparing EU and US
approaches. Retrieved 06/22/2004 from

http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/cwes/papers/poli_series/TransatlanticBiotech.pdf.

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). (2005). PBS Glossary. Retrieved 06/05/2005 from
www.pbs.org/emptyoceans/glossary.html.

140

Peritore, P. N. (1995). Biotechnology, political economy and environmental impacts. In
Peritore, N., & Galve-Peritore (Ed.), Biotechnology in Latin America: Politics.
impacts and risks. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc. lrnprint (SR
Books).

Peritore, P. N., & Galve-Peritore, A., K. (1995). Mexican biotechnology and decision
makers' attitudes towards technology policy. In Peritore, P. N., & Galve-Peritore,
A. K. (Ed.), Biotechnology in Latin America: Politics, impacts and risks.
Wilmington, Delaware: Schorlarly Resources Inc. Imprint (SR Books).

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (Fifth Ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster
Inc.

Rogers, E., & Kinkaid, D. (1981). Communication Networks: Towards a New Paradigm
for Research. New York: Free Press. C(E).

Sanchez, A. P., Shepherd, K. D., Soule, M. J ., Place, F. M., Buresh, R.J., Izac, A. et a1.
(1997). Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: "An investment in natural resource
capital. " Cited in Haggblade et al. 2003. African Agriculture: Past performance,
future imperatives. Conference paper presented at the In WEnt, IFPRI, and C T A
conference on "Successes in African agriculture." Pretoria. December 1-3, 2003.

Sanchez, N. (2002 ). Bacillus thuringiensis. Retrieved 10/ 10, 2004, from
http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu/2002/FinalProjects/Cluster7/sanchez/Bacillusthuringien
sis.html#what.

Santos, R. J. (1999). Cronbach's Alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales.
Journal of Extension, 3 7(2).

Shapuori, S., & Rosen, S. (2001). Issues in food security. Retrieved 07/07/2004 from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib765l/aib765-1.pdf.

Singh, K. (2004). [C T Planning and implementation at KNUST. Retrieved 12/16/2004
from http://www.foundation-partnership.org/linchpin/knust.htm.

Smaling, E. M. A., Nandwa, S. M., & B. H. Janssen (1997). "Soil fertility in Africa is at
stake. " Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. (Special Publication No. 51, P. 63-
80.). Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America (SSSA).

StatPac. (2004). Questionnaires and survey design. Retrieved 05/16/2004 from
http://www.statpac.com/surveys.

Tedla, S., & Berhe, C. (1995). Biotechnology in Ethiopia: Local research and
innovations. In Juma, C., Mugabe, J ., & Kameri-Mbote, P. (Ed.), Coming to life:

Biotechnolog) in African economic recovery. Nairobi: Africa Centre for
Technology Studies; London, UK : Zed Books.

141

Ten Eyck, T., Gaskell, G., & Jackson, J. (2004). Seeds food and trade wars: Public
opinion and policy response in the USA and Europe. Journal of Commercial
Biotechnology. 10(3), 258-267.

Thompson, R. L. (1989). Farm, trade and development policies: What they mean for
future US. export markets. In Swegle and Li gon (Ed.), Winrock Development
Educaiton Series (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Winrock International Institute of
Agricultural Development.

Tsang-Kosma, W. (2005). Rogers’ diflusion and adoption research: What does it have to
do with instructional technology? Retrieved 07/07/2005 from
http://www2.gsu.edu/~mstswh/courses/it7000/papers/rogers'.htm.

UCLA Academic Technology Services. (2005). What does Cronbach's alpha mean?
Retrieved 07/14/2005 from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/statlspss/faq/alphahtml.

Udoh, V. J. (Ed.). (1995). Women and sustainable development in Africa. West Port, CT.
Praeger Publishers.

USAID and IFPRI. (2002). Cutting hunger in Africa through smallholder-led
agricultural growth. Paper presented at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD). Johannesburg.

Van Ravenswaay, E. O. (1995). Public perceptions of agrochemicals. Cited in Powell, D.
(1998). Impact of biotechnology, environment, food safety: Communications. A
presentation prepared for the agriculture risk management conference.
Saskatoon, SK. Council of Agricultural Science and Technology Task Force.
October 29, 1995.

Vasil, I. K. (1998). Plant Biotechnology: Achievements and opportunities at the threshold
of the 21st century. Paper presented at the IX International Congress on Plant
Tissue and Cell Culture, Jerusalem, Israel.

Wafula, J. S. (1993). Introduction to national and regional needs, constraints and
priorities related to safety in biotechnology. Paper presented at the African
Regional Conference for International Cooperation on Safety in Biotechnology.
Harare, Zimbabwe.

Wafula, J. S. (1999). Agricultural biotechnolog/ in Kenya. Approach, innovation and
challenges. (Regional Conference on Biotechnology Assessment: Regimes and
Experiences). Nairobi: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute.

Wagner, W., Torgesen, H., Seifert, F., Grabner, P., & Lehner, S. (1998). Biotechnology

in Austria. In Durant, Bauer and Gaskell (Ed.), Biotechnology in the Public
Sphere: A European Source Book. (pp. 15-28). London: Cromwell Press.

142

Walgate, R. (1995). Miracle or menace? Biotechnology and the third world. Washington,
DC: Panos Institute, Budapest.

Wambugu, F. M. (2001). Modifying Afiica: How biotechnology can benefit the poor and
hungry: A case study from Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya. Unpublished raw data.

Wayne, E. A. ( 2003). The role of agriculture and rural development. Remarks to the
Millennium Challenge Corporation-39th annual meeting of the Association for
International and Rural Development. Retrieved 11/23/2004 from
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2003/21701.htrn.

Wimberley, C., Reynolds, N. W., Vander Mey, V. G., Wells, B. L., Ejimakor, G. D.,
Burrneister, L. L., Harris, C. K., Lee, A. M., Mclean, L. E., Molnar, J. J .,
Ohlendorf, G. W., Tomazic, T. J. (2003). Food from our changing world: The
globalization of food and how Americans feel about it. Retrieved 11/23/2004 from
http://sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/globalfood/foodglobal.htrnl.

Wingenbach, G., Rutherford, T., & Dansford, D. (2004). Selected College Students'
Knowledge and Perceptions of Biotechnology Issues Reported in the Mass Media.
Journal of Applied Communications, 86(3), 7-23.

Wolf, J. D. & Peterson, R. K. D. (2000). Agricultural Biotechnology and Societal
Decision-Making: The Role of Risk Analysis. AgBioForum, 3(2000), 39-46.

Woodward, B., Bring, J ., & Berger, D. (1999). Can agricultural biotechnology make a

difference in Africa? AgBioForum, 2((3&4)), 175-181. Available on the World
Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

143

APPENDIX A

Letter to the Dean of KNUST

144

12 April 2004

Professor D. B. Okai, Dean

Faculty of Agriculture

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology
Kumasi - Ghana

Dear Professor Okai:

By way of introduction, my name is Michael Woods, an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies (CARRS) at
Michigan State University. Currently, I am working with Mr. Doe Adovor, a master’s
student in the CARRS department. Mr. Adovor is a Ghanaian and former student from
the Faculty of Agriculture at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology.

Currently, we are conducting a research study that seeks to investigate Ghanaian college
student’s perceptions of biotechnology. This research study will be used to fulfill part of
Mr. Adovor’s master’s theses requirement in the CARRS department. In anticipation of
including agricultural students from KNUST in Our study, we write to seek your
permission to conduct this study among students from academic programs offered by the
Faculty of Agriculture.

For your review, we have attached a sample of our questionnaire. Presently, Mr. Adovor
is seeking a collaborating faculty research partner from the Faculty of Agriculture for this
study. Please note that your faculty and institution will not incur any financial burdens
associated with this project. We will provide all survey to distribute to the respondents
and cover all postage costs.

We appreciate your full consideration of this request. Should you need further
information regarding this request, please call upon me at mwoods@msu.edu or
517.355.6580 x 202. We look forward to working with your institution and faculty in
launching this baseline study regarding Ghanaian college student’s perceptions of
biotechnology.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Woods, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

145

APPENDIX B

The Survey Questionnaire

146

When completed, please return your survey booklet
to the survey administrator.

Thank you for your cooperation with this study.

Ghanaian College Students’
Perception of Biotechnology

Directions

Purmse: The purpose of this status survey is to assess Ghanaian college student’s perceptions of
biotechnology.

The Questions: Please read each statement and immediately respond with your initial reaction. We are
only interested in your honest opinions. There are no correct or incorrect answers.
This questionnaire takes about I 0 minutes to complete.

Confidentiality: We respect your confidentiality by removing your name and other identifying
information from your survey. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any
time. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

When Finished: Upon completion of the questionnaire, please return your survey booklet to the survey
administrator.

Questions: Please feel free to contact Dr. Richard Akromah at rakromah@yahoo.com or Dr. Michael
Woods at mwoods@msu.edu if you have questions regarding this study.

By completing the survey, you acknowledge that this questionnaire is voluntary and recognize that you
will not be penalized if you choose not to participate. By completing this questionnaire you give your
consent to be included in the study.

Begin survey.

147

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To what extent do you believe that biotechnology Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
will affect the following? Negative Negative Positive Positive
1. Commercial farming l 2 3 4

2. The environment I 2 3 4

3. Fish and wild life 1 2 3 4

4. Food production 1 2 3 4

5. Small scale farms 1 2 3 4

6. World hunger l 2 3 4

7. Your health 1 2 3 4
:3::;:):::22:1£: tuliibxciihricoibg‘fvmg source(s) to Never Occasionally Often Always
8. Extension/Government Services I 2 3 4

9. lntemet I 2 3 4
10. Newspapers 1 2 3 4

1 1. Non-Governmental Organizations 1 2 3 4
12. Popular magazines 1 2 3 4
13. Radio 1 2 3 4
14. Scientific journals 1 2 3 4
15. Technical publications/reports l 2 3 4
16. Television 1 2 3 4
17. University course work 1 2 3 4
2:; ofiporlllmi:gh::r:oc:;ething about biotechnology Never Occasionally Often Always
18. Extension/Government Services I 2 3 4
19. lntemet l 2 3 4
20. Newspapers I 2 3 4
21. Non—Govemmental Organizations 1 2 3 4
22. Popular magazines I 2 3 4
23. Radio 1 2 3 4
24. Scientific journals 1 2 3 4
25. Technical publications/reports l 2 3 4
26. Television 1 2 3 4
27. University course work I 2 3 4
To what extent do you use the following experiences to

establish your perceptions about biotechnology at the Never Occasionally Often Always
present time?

28. Publicly accepted attitudes toward biotechnology I 2 3 4
29. Experience in science labs I 2 3 4
30. Family‘s beliefs about biotechnology l 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31. Family's beliefs about biotechnology l 2 3 4
32. Friends’ beliefs about biotechnology l 2 3 4
33. Knowledge from science classes 1 2 3 4
34. Religious beliefs 1 2 3 4
35. University professors' beliefs about biotechnology l 2 3 4
What level of importance should be placed on Not at all Fairl Ve
‘bgfizexziéotsg‘yflrgsearch regarding the Important Importint Imprtant lmporrtyant
35. Added nutritional value to food I 2 3 4
36. Benefits to the environment I 2 3 4
37. Control of released genes 1 2 3 4
38. Harming the environment I 2 3 4
39. Reduction of pesticides I 2 3 4
40. Risk compared to pesticides l 2 3 4
41. Safer food I 2 3 4
How much confidence do you place in
:Ltftzztfizlftillttt1:231:54?“ by V"! W W "it!“ big
flanizations?
42. Activist groups I 2 3 4
43. Biotechnology companies I 2 3 4
44. Celebrities/popular stars I 2 3 4
45. Extension specialists l 2 3 4
46. Farm groups 1 2 3 4
47. Food companies I 2 3 4
48. Government agencies 1 2 3 4
49. Health professionals 1 2 3 4
50. Non-govemmental organizations I 2 3 4
51. Researchers 1 2 3 4
How important is it for you as a future
agricultural industry professional to Not at all Fairly Imp mnt Very
investigate claims made about blotechnology Important Important Important
by the following groups?
52. Activist groups 1 2 3 4
53. Biotechnology companies 1 2 3 4
54. Celebrities/popular stars 1 2 3 4
55. Extension specialists l 2 3 4
56. Farm groups I 2 3 4
57. Food companies I 2 3 4
58. Government agencies I 2 3 4
59. Health professionals 1 2 3 4
60. Non-govemmental organizations I 2 3 4
6]. Researchers 1 2 3 4

 

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To what extent do the following issues impact . Very
your perception of biotechnology? Very Low Low High High
62. Fear of harm to the environment 1 2 3 4
63. Fear of food safety consequences I 2 3 4
64. Fear of genes moving unchecked to other 1 2 3 4
plants, insects or microorganisms
65. Religious concerns about “altering nature" I 2 3 4
To what extent do you agree with the following Strongly . Strongly
statements? Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
66. There are enough qualified persons to test 1 2 3 4
transgenic crops in Ghana.
67. Ghana has in place the essential bio-safety l 2 3 4
legislation to receive GM crops from abroad.
68. The Ghanaian government should reject patent 1 2 3 4
protection of transgenic plants.
69. The Ghanaian government should reject patent l 2 3 4
protection of transgenic animals.
70. The Ghanaian government should require 1 2 3 4
labeling of transgenic plant products.
71. The Ghanaian government should require 1 2 3 4
labeling of transgenic animal products.
Demographic Questions
a. 19 or less
b. 20
c. 21
72. Age (1. 22
e. 23
f. 24
. 25+
73. Sex ;‘ 33:“
a. 1" year
Id
74. What is your current year in college? 2. 32... 3::
d. 4" year
a. Very low
75. How would you rate your current level of knowledge regarding b. Low
biotechnology? c. High
(1. Very high
a. Animal science
. . _ _ b. Crop science
76. What disc1p11ne are you studying? c. Agric Econ
(J. Horticulture

 

e. Mechanization
f. General Agric

 

150

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Age Distribution of Respondents

 

 

 

Age Categories Frequency Percent

19 or less 9 3.0

20 32 10.6

21 38 12.6

22 60 19.9

23 52 17.3

24 49 16.3

25+ 52 17.3
Non-Respondents 9 3.0

 

Total 301 100.0

 

151

 

   

iiiilllirlilliitrill