Acceptance of biotechnology and social-cultural implications in Ghana

Quaye, Wilhemina and Yawson, Ivy and Yawson, Robert M. and Williams, Irene E. (2009): Acceptance of biotechnology and social-cultural implications in Ghana. Published in: Afr. J. Biotechnol , Vol. 8, No. 9 : pp. 1997-2003.

Abstract

Despite major scientific progress in the application of biotechnology in agriculture, public attitudes towards biotechnology in general and genetically modified food (GM food) products in particular remain mixed in Africa. Examining responses on acceptance of GM food through a stakeholder survey in Ghana, it was established that half of the 100 people sample interviewed were not in favor of GM foods. To this group acceptance of GM foods would make farmers loose focus on the traditional ways of cultivation, putting the whole nation at the mercy of profit driven foreign companies who produce GM foods. In order to have clear and unbiased attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology in Africa, there is the need to substitute dominant ideologies in the way biotechnology research and dissemination are conducted in developed countries with tailor-made methodologies in developing countries. This paper emphasizes the social dynamic force of food focusing on the need for social shaping of biotechnologies to reflect local and regional needs. Respondents’ perceptions of GM foods suggest that food is seen as not just a commodity to be consumed but food has both cultural and national identities. Generally, people are identified by their consumption and nutrition lifestyles and therefore take pride in what they eat. A proposal is made to set biotechnology research agenda in the context of social choices; social scientific coalition of biotechnology with endogenous development pathways’ as opposed to ‘exogenous biotechnology research’. Also there is the need for adequate capacity building of the existing regulatory institutions to handle ethical and moral issues associated with biotechnology research since survey findings showed lacked of public confidence in them.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Biotechnology; survey; acceptability; social shaping; Ghana
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; L - Industrial Organization > L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing > L65 - Chemicals ; Rubber ; Drugs ; Biotechnology; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture; Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics ; Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D71 - Social Choice ; Clubs ; Committees ; Associations; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q17 - Agriculture in International Trade; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O13 - Agriculture ; Natural Resources ; Energy ; Environment ; Other Primary Products; Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics ; Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology > Z13 - Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology ; Social and Economic Stratification; P - Economic Systems > P3 - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions > P32 - Collectives ; Communes ; Agriculture

References

Aerni P (1999). Public Acceptance of Transgenic Rice and its Potential Impact on Future Rice Markets in Southeast Asia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Aerni P (2001). Public Attitudes towards Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: A Comparison between Mexico and the Philippines. Science, Technology and Innovation Discussion Paper No. 10. Cambridge, MA, USA: Center for International Development, social choices; social scientific coalition of biotechnology with endogenous development t pathways’ as opposed to exogenous biotechnology research’ Harvard University. http://www2.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech dp/discussion_aerni.pdf

Baker GA, Burnham TA (2001). Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis and Implications for Producers and Policy Makers. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 26: 387-403.

Einsiedel FF (1997). Biotechnology and the Canadian Public. Report on a 1997 National Survey and Some International Comparison. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

FAO (2003). Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. The State of Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy.

Feenberg A (2005). Critical theory of Technology: An Overview: Potentialities, Actualities and Spaces 1(1): 47-64

Feenberg A (2002). Transforming Technology, New York. Oxford University.

Feenberg A (1999). Questioning Technology, New York: Routledge.

Galhardi RM (1995). Employment Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Latin America: Coffee and Cocoa in Costa Rica. In Assessing the Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnologies, edited by B. Herbert-Copley, Proceedings of Meeting of International Development Research Center (IDRC), May 15-16, Ottawa, Canada.

Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H, Boy D, de Cheveigne S, Fjaestad B, Gutteling JM, Hampel J, Jelsoe E, Jesuino JC, Kohring M, Kronberger N, Midden C, Nielsen TH,Przestalski A, Rusanen T, Sakellaris G, Torgersen H, Twardowski T, Wagner W (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nat. Biotechnol. 18(9): 935-938.

Hallman W, Adelaja A, Schilling B, Lang JT (2001). Consumer Beliefs, Attitudes and Preferences Regarding Agricultural Biotechnology. Food Policy Institute Report, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Hamstra IA (1998). Public Opinion about Biotechnology: A Survey of Surveys. European Federation of Biotechnology Task Group on Public Perceptions on Biotechnology, The Hague, The Netherlands.p. 19.

IFPRI (2007). International Food Policy Research Institute. Sustainable Solutions for ending hunger and poverty. The Future of Small Farms for Poverty Reduction and Growth. Vision 2020 Policy Briefs.

Isserman AM (2001). Genetically Modified Food: Understanding the Social Dilemma. Am. Behav. Scient. 44: 1225-1232.

Juma C (2002). The Global Sustainability Challenge: From Agreement to Action. Int. J. Global Environ. Issues 2(1-2): 1-14.

Junne G (1991). The Impacts of Biotechnology on International Trade. In Biotechnology in Perspective: Socio-economic Implications for Developing Countries, Edited by A. Sasson and V. Costarini, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Kalaitzandonakes (2000). Agrobiotechnology and Competitiveness. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 82(5): 1224-1233.

Quaye W (2007). Food Sovereignty and combating poverty and hunger in Ghana. Tailoring Biotechnol. 3(2): 101-108.

Rohrmann B, Renn O (2000) Risk Perception Research. An Introduction. In: Renn O, Rohrmann B (eds) Cross-Cultural Risk Research. A Survey of Empirical Studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Ruivenkamp G (2005). Between Bio-Power and Sub-Politics Tailoring Biotechnologies: Potentialities, Actualities and Spaces 1(1): 11-32.

Sagar A, Daemmrich A, Ashiya M (2000). The tragedy of the commoners: biotechnology and its publics Commentary. Nat. Biotechnol., Vol 18.

Shanahan J, Scheufele D, Lee E (2001). Trends: Attitudes about Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(2): 267-81.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2001). Human Development Report: Making new technologies work for human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wanatabe S (1985). Employment and Income Implication of the Bio-Revolution: A Speculative Note. Int. Labor Rev. 124: 227-247.

Winterfeldt von D, Edwards W (1984). Patterns of conflict about risk technologies. Risk Anal. 4: 55-68.

Yawson RM (2004). Agricultural Biotechnology, Poverty Reduction and Food Security in Ghana. Biotech. Ghana Vol. 3 No. 1 ISSN 0855- 6245 pp. 7-8