SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA
PERCEPTIONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS (GMFS)
AND ITS PERCEIVED RISKS AND BENEFITS ON HEALTH
AMONG UNIVERSITY OF GHANA (UG) STUDENTS
BY
JOHNNY OWUSU
(10508280)
THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN APPLIED HEALTH SOCIAL SCIENCE DEGREE
JULY, 2015
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
i
DECLARATION
I, Johnny Owusu, do hereby declare that, with the exception of other people’s works
which have been duly acknowledged, this dissertation is my own work under the
supervision of Dr. Emmanuel Asampong, and that this work, either whole or in part, has
not been presented elsewhere for another degree.
………………………………. ……….……………………
Johnny Owusu Date
(Student)
………………………………. …………………………….
Dr. Emmanuel Asampong Date
(Supervisor)
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my Parents, Georgina Owusuaa and Joseph Mensah Atta, and
my siblings who have been my source of encouragement.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am highly grateful to the almighty God for His grace and mercy upon my life throughout
this study.
I am deeply thankful to my academic supervisor, Dr. Emmanuel Asampong for his
guidance and support throughout this study. Many thanks go to Mr. Dwomo of the
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health for his support to have this work
done.
I am also thankful to all lecturers who supported me, especially Dr. Collins Ahorlu and
to all students of the University of Ghana who took part in the study.
Finally, I say a big thank you to my senior brother; Mr. Benson Atta, for his financial
support and encouragement to carry out this study.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
iv
ABSTRACT
Introduction -Genetically modified foods (GMFs) are foods containing Genetically
Modified (GM) ingredients produced by using modern molecular and cellular biology
techniques. People are widely exposed to GM foods through either direct or indirect
consumption of processed foods produced using GM ingredients. After the inception of
the first commercial GMFs in the early 90s, contentions arose with regards to the
potential benefits and risks to human health and the environment.
Method -This cross sectional descriptive study examined the perceptions of students of
the University of Ghana about GMFs effects on health. A total of 194 students from
different colleges of the University participated in the study. Data entry and analysis was
done using STATA 13. Chi square was used to assess the association between the
outcome variables and explanatory variables. P < 0.05 was used to denote statistical
significance.
Results -The study revealed that the students had high awareness of GMOs and GMFs.
The study also found television and radio as the students’ major source of information
on GM issues. Generally, many of the students believed that consumption of GMFs could
be harmful to health with cancer and allergy as their major concern. However, others also
thought enhanced nutrient content of GMFs as a major health benefit.
Conclusion - There should be awareness creation and educational campaigns of GMFs
to help the general public to make well informed decisions and become actively involved
in the decision making process. Finally, studies tracking public opinion should be
conducted regularly, in order to determine awareness levels, capture the impact of
awareness activities, the perceptions and reveal trends to inform policy and practice.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................... i
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Justification of the study ............................................................................................ 9
1.5 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 10
1.6 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 10
1.6.1 General Objective ...................................................................................................... 10
1.6.2 Specific Objectives .................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 11
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 11
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
vi
2.1.1 Brief History of GMOs .............................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Awareness and Interest of GMOs/GMFs .................................................................. 12
2.1.3 The Effects of Information on Perception ................................................................. 14
2.2.0 Perception on Potential Benefits and Risks of GMO/GMFs ..................................... 17
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 22
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 22
3.2 Study Design ............................................................................................................ 22
3.3 Study Area (additional information must be added) ................................................ 22
3.4 Variables ................................................................................................................... 23
3.5 Study Population ...................................................................................................... 23
3.5.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria ................................................................................. 23
3.6 Sampling ................................................................................................................... 23
3.6.1 Sample Size Calculation ............................................................................................ 23
3.6.2 Sampling Method ...................................................................................................... 24
3.7 Data Collection Techniques ..................................................................................... 24
3.8 Quality Control ......................................................................................................... 25
3.9 Pre-test ...................................................................................................................... 25
3.10 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 26
3.11 Ethical Considerations and issues .......................................................................... 27
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
vii
CHAPTER FOUR ...................................................................................................................... 28
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 28
4.2 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ............................................... 28
4.3: Awareness of GMOs and GMFs ............................................................................. 29
4.4 Sources of Information ............................................................................................. 31
4.5 Relationships between socio-demographics variables and awareness level of
respondents ..................................................................................................................... 32
4.6 Risk and benefits Perceptions about GMFs effects on health .................................. 33
4.6.1 Association between socio-demographic characteristics and perception of GMFs
effects on health .................................................................................................................. 35
4.7 Other perceptions about GMOs and GMFs .............................................................. 36
4.7.1 Perception of GMOs on the environment .................................................................. 36
4.7.2 Preferred Food production Source and the acceptability of GMFs if they were
cheaper ................................................................................................................................ 37
4.7.3 Association of socio-demographics and acceptability of GMFs if they were cheaper
............................................................................................................................................ 38
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 40
DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................. 40
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 40
5.2 Awareness level and Knowledge ............................................................................. 40
5.3 Sources of information on biotechnology and GMFs .............................................. 41
5.4 Risk and benefits Perceptions about GMFs effects on health .................................. 42
5.5 Other perceptions about GMOs and GMFs .............................................................. 45
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
viii
5.6 The Relationship between Gender and Perception .................................................. 45
5.7 Application of the Conceptual Framework to Perception about GMFs ............................... 46
CHAPTER SIX .......................................................................................................................... 48
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 48
6.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 48
6.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 49
6.2.1 Education ................................................................................................................... 49
6.2.2 Policy ......................................................................................................................... 49
6.2.3 Research .................................................................................................................... 50
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 51
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 59
Appendix 1: Consent Form ............................................................................................ 59
Appendix 2: Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 61
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Socio-Demographics characteristics of Study Respondents ............................ 29
Table 2: Awareness on GMOs and GMFs ..................................................................... 30
Table 3: Source of information and level of trust of source ........................................... 31
Table 4: Relationships between Socio-demographic characteristics and level of
awareness of GMOs and GMFs (N=194) ...................................................................... 32
Table 5: Perceptions about the effect of GMFs on health and perceptions about the use
of GMT ........................................................................................................................... 34
Table 6: Association between socio-demographics and perceptions of GMFs on health
(N=194) .......................................................................................................................... 36
Table 7: Participants perception about the impact of GMOs on the environment ......... 37
Table 8: Respondents’ preferred food production sources ............................................. 37
Table 9: Association between socio-demographics and acceptability of GMFs if they
were cheaper ................................................................................................................... 39
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Diagram ...................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Sources of information on GMOs and GMFs ................................................. 30
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Bt corn-Bacillus thuringeiensis corn
EKB Model- Kollat and Blackwell Model
GE- Genetic Engineering
GM crops- Genetically Modified Crops
GM- Genetic Modification
GMFs- Genetically Modified Foods
GMOs-Genetically Modified Foods
GMT-Genetic Modification Technology
GMVs- Genetically Modified Vectors
IFPRI-International Food policy Research Institute
ISAAA - International Service for the Acquisition of Agriculture-Biotechnology
Applications
rDNAT – Recombinant DNA Techniques
WHO-TDR- World Health Organization Training in Tropical Disease
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The ongoing debate on Genetically Modified Foods (GMFs) and the information on the
diffusion of innovations of Genetic Modification Technology (GMT) are filled with
examples of individuals, groups and or organizations rising up, either against or for the
introduction of the technology (Quaye, Yawson, Yawson, & Williams, 2009). There is
growing public discussion about the potential benefits and risks of Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs), especially concerning GMF which is the most publicized product
of biotechnology. Before the introduction of modern biotechnology or Genetic
Engineering (GE) in agriculture, farmers in livestock and crops had sought to improve
upon their practices and adapt to the environment (Wieczorek, 2003). This had been done
through purposive selection of crops and animals with the best and preferred
characteristics for further replanting. Thus, farmers have since time immemorial kept
seeds with a preferred character for reproduction (Ruttan, 1999). This technique of
maintaining and improving particular desired characteristics of a crop or animal is known
as selective breeding or traditional biotechnology (Ploeg, 2000). After Mendel in 1866
proved scientifically that characters or traits are carried from parental genome to their
offspring with the explanation that trait is the character of interest to the farmers. This
could be expressed in terms of colour, height, taste, yield etc.(Matthen & Stephens,
2007). This Mendelian concept led to the introduction of modern biotechnology or
genetic engineering with the intention of speeding up the breeding techniques used by
farmers and also to obtain result devoid of unintended traits.
The term GMF can be referred to as crop plants that are created for consumption by
introducing a desirable set of genes into the crop plants using recombinant DNA
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2
Techniques (rDNAT). Genes are transferred from a plant to another plant. In other cases,
genes are transferred from animal to plants, such as from bacteria to plants, for example
Bt. Corn (Swiatkiewicz, Swiatkiewicz, Arczewska-Wlosek, & Jozefiak, 2014). This
method provides the modified plant or animal with the desired characteristics faster than
the classical cross breeding methods. At certain times, the process is called bio-
engineering, biotechnology or genetic engineering (Anderson, Wachenheim, & Lesch,
2005). In simple terms, GMFs are foods containing Genetically Modified (GM)
ingredients. People are widely exposed to GM foods through either direct or indirect
consumption of processed foods produced using GM ingredients (Jae-Hwan, 1995).
The emergence of biotechnology is viewed by advocates as the next revolution which
has the potential to fundamentally change the way society organises production and
distribution of food (Hallman, Hebden, Aquino, & Cuite, 2003). Biotechnology is a
powerful tool that presents benefits such as potential health, environmental, social and
economic benefits and demands rigorous oversight (Quaye et al., 2009). However, in
recent years, biotechnology has been under public scrutiny. Many supporters of the
technology are concerned that the benefits of the technology may be overshadowed by
the potential risks magnified by the media and opponents of the technology (Blaine,
Kamaldeen, 2002).
A 2014 report by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agriculture-
Biotechnology Applications (ISAAA) indicated that, the global hectarage of biotech
crops has increased more than 100-fold; from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 181.5
million hectares in 2014. This empirical evidence implies that biotech crops are the
fastest adopted crop technology in recent time. According to the report, the impressive
adoption rate of GM crops speaks for itself; in terms of its sustainability, resilience and
the significant benefits it delivers to both small and large farmers as well as consumers
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3
(James, 2014). This had led to increase in commercially grown GM plants, more foods
and feeds which were produced from GMOs are available on the market of many
countries (Upsaliensis, 2004). Various GM foods such as Zea mays (corn), tomato,
potato, wheat, pumpkin, sunflower, peanut, some fish, colza, cassava, and papaya are
consumed by people in the world (Paper, Hallman, Ph, Cuite, & Morin, 2013). It is
possible that biscuits, vegetable oils, baby foods, chocolate, corn products, soy products,
chips, cookies, snack foods and ready soups may have certain GM ingredients (Kaya,
Poyrazoglu, Artik, & Konar, 2013). The concerns about GMFs are widespread. Yet many
of us may be eating food containing GM ingredients without realizing it (Dean &
Shepherd, 2007a).
Many GM products for example rice with enhanced vitamin A, long lasting fruits and
vegetables have already entered the world’s food distribution networks (Quaye et al.,
2009). The development and commercialization of GMFs have become a great concern.
Advocates believe that GM products have inherent capacity not only to meet our basic
need, but to also bring to bear the wide range of economic, environment and health
benefits. They also accentuate the potential benefits to society through reduction of
hunger and malnutrition prevention, cure of disease and promotion of health and general
well-being (Isserman, 2001; Fukuda-Parr & Birdsall, 2001). More recently the US Food
and Drug Authority approved a new biotech crops and planned for commercialization in
2015 and beyond. This includes brinjal (eggplant) and potato. The potato was modified
to reduce the amount of acrylamide it produced when exposed to high temperature to a
negligible amount in order to prevent cancer (US FDA, 2014). A meta-analysis
conducted by Gruissem (2015) on 147 published biotech crop studies during the last 20
years, using primary data from farm surveys or field trials world-wide and reporting
impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
4
profits substantiate the significant and multiple benefits that biotech crops had generated
over the past 20 years (1995 to 2014).
In spite of the significant benefits GM technology brings to society, public acceptance to
GM foods or food biotechnology has been with mixed feelings (Sophia & Powell, 2000;
Tenbült, De Vries, van Breukelen, Dreezens & Martijn, 2008).
Africa is emerging as one of the Frontlines in the battle for acceptance (or otherwise) of
agricultural biotechnology. For Africa, the discussion is occurring at a critical period
when occurrence of food insecurity, poverty and malnutrition are particularly upsetting
(Sheeran, 2008; FAO, 2014).
According to a 2014 report by the ISAAA stated that Africa continued to make progress
in 2014. Sudan has increased its Bt cotton hectare substantially to 90,000 hectares which
represents 46%, with South Africa and Burkina Faso marginally lower mainly because
of uncertainty of planting conditions of the Bt cotton. However, it is important to note
that South Africa is one of the five lead biotech developing countries in the three
continents of the south. Currently, an additional seven African countries such as
Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, and Uganda have conducted field
trials on the following broad range of staple and orphan crops: rice, maize, wheat,
sorghum, banana, cassava, and sweet potato. The first biotech stacked drought tolerant
maize with insect control (Bt) would be expected to delivered by Water Efficient Maize
for Africa (WEMA) to South Africa as early as 2017, followed by Kenya and Uganda
and then by Mozambique and Tanzania, subject to regulatory approval (James, 2014). In
Ghana some legislation had been put in place, for example, the Government of Ghana in
2011 passed the biosafety Act 831, 2011, which will enable Ghana to allow the
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
5
application of biotechnology including GMOs, in food crop production (Souza, Brown,
Ahorlu, & Suzuki, 2013; Tuffour et al., 2013).
1.2 Problem Statement
In democratic societies, public perceptions can both promote and impede the commercial
introduction and adoption of new technologies. Public perceptions of biotechnology have
received extensive attention in recent years in most Western countries (Rimal, Moon, &
Balasubramanian, 2005; Bonny, 2003), including publications (Blaine, Kamaldeen,
2002; Morris & Adley, 2000), book chapters (Morris & Adley, 2000), conferences
(Sophia & Powell, 2000; Hollingworth & Meade, 2003), studies of social implications
and public concerns about biotechnology (Gaps et al., 2000; Blaine, Kamaldeen, 2002).
There had been several surveys on public perceptions of genetic engineering or
biotechnology in developed countries (Bonny, 2003; Hallman et al., 2003; Hoban, 2001;
Ganiere, Wen & Chern, 2004; Curtis, McCluskey, & Wahl, 2004; Gaskell, 2000; Moon
& Balasubramanian, 2003). However, the consuming publics in the developing countries
are left in the state of uncertainty. There is little or no literature concerning the public
perceptions of potential benefits and risks of GM products because little investigation
has been conducted in developing world where the technology is not yet practiced on a
large scale (Anderson et al., 2005). For instance, in Ghana, the paucity of GMOs/GMFs
research on public perceptions has left the people in the country with uncertainty. It is,
therefore, important that the people of this country are made aware of the critical issues
of the GMFs, the benefits and the threats associated with it in order to make informed
decisions. However, this could not be done effectively without the knowledge of the
public perception about GMOs/GMFs. It is explicit that the views of the people are very
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
6
important which must also be considered to make informed decisions, especially with
regards to educating the public.
The study sought to investigate the perceptions about GMFs and its perceived potential
risks and benefits in relation to health. The knowledge from this study would bridge the
gap on public perceptions on GMFs and will inform policy-makers with regards to GM
policy since it of great public health concern not only in Ghana but the world as well.
1.3 Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 below illustrates the relationship between the outcome and independent
variables associated with perceptions of GMFs. The diagram shows the various factors
that influence people’s perception of GMFs, especially with the perceived health
outcome of GMFs. The perception of the health outcome of GMFs which is the outcome
variable is affected by the independent variables (information, beliefs, sensory and non-
sensory characteristics, techniques of production and attitudes towards GMFs). The
information includes content of the message, source of information and the level of trust
of the source. Beliefs consist of perceived benefits and perceived risks of GMFs. Also
techniques of food production are made up of GM technology, organic fertilizer and
inorganic fertilizer
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
7
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Diagram
Source: Author’s own construct
The above diagram also indicates that information received by people forms their
perception of GMFs which could easily influence a person’s attitude towards GM
products. Research had found that while provision of information is likely to influence
perceptions and attitude, the social context in which the information is received is likely
to determine public reaction as the content of the information itself (Costa-Font, Gil, &
Traill, 2008). Credibility and trusted information source and regulators are likely to play
a major part in the determination of individual reactions to products (Frewer, Howard,
Hedderley & Shepherd, 1996)
Perceptions of potential health
Outcome of GMFs
Techniques of food
production
GM
technology
Organic
fertilizer
Inorganic
fertilizer
Beliefs
Perceived benefits of
GMFs
Perceived risks of
GMFs
Attitude towards GMFs
Information
Content of the message
Source of information
Level of trust of the
source
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
8
Also, it shows a direct link between the beliefs/perceptions of GMFs and perceptions of
potential health outcome of GMFs. When exploring consumer perceptions, an important
question is which factors are responsible for attitude development. The presumption is
that beliefs are key elements in forming attitudes and eventually influence behaviour.
Beliefs characterize the base set of information that a consumer has about an object or
concept (Albert, Aschenbrenner, & Schmalhofer, 1989). Individual perceptions and
thought about GM foods is a dictate of one’s beliefs in conjunction with other factors.
Also beliefs play a significant role in forming attitude mediation intentions (Moon &
Balasubramanian 2004; Hallman & Aquino, 2005; Han & Harrison, 2007). According to
Fishbein’s multi-attribute model, a person’s attitude toward any object is a function of
his/her beliefs about the subject or the object and the implicit evaluative responses
associated with those beliefs (Costa-Font et al., 2008). Engel, Blackwell, and Kollat
defined attitude as “a learned predisposition to respond consistently in a favourable
manner with respect to a given alternative”(Jae-Hwan, 1995). Consequently, attitude
refers to an individual’s favourable or unfavourable evaluation of GM foods, and attitude
formation is closely related to the consumer’s evaluation of GM foods. Fishbein Multi-
attribute Model (Fishbein, 1963) states that an attitude towards a product is based on
knowledge about the product itself as well as its attributes, which is referred to as the so-
called ‘bottom-up’ formation of attitudes (Costa-Font et al., 2008). This theory explains
that consumer attitudes towards GM foods depends on his or her subjective thinking that
GM foods are related to positive or negative evaluation of attributes and that the strength
of belief associate to a given attitude, either positive or negative attribute determines an
individual’s intention about GMFs. This implies that attitudes towards GMFs are defined
by means of a weighted sum of attitudes towards each product and its corresponding
process. Therefore, each attitude also depends on the overall perceived risks and benefits
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
9
associated with the product and process, respectively. The implication therefore is that,
techniques of the method used in food production have a strong influence on people’s
perceptions of the potential health outcome of the GMFs. Information, beliefs and
techniques in food production all exert a level influence on attitude towards GMFs
products. The importance of understanding individuals’ attitude toward GMFs is not only
to decision makers, but also to the food manufacturers, biotechnology industry, research
institutes and food retailers. Findings from research had shown that individual resistance
to GMFs has changed the trend of food industry behaviour and has led to substantial
segmentation of GMFs from non-GMFs (Huang, Qiu, Bai, & Pray, 2006).
1.4 Justification of the study
The outcome of this study would have both theoretical and organizational relevance.
Theoretically, issue on GMFs largely remains an unexplored area of research in Ghana.
Additionally, the level of awareness of GMOs/GMFs and the perceived effects on the
health of the people of this country has been ignored, when it comes to investigations on
how the public feels and views about the pros and cons of GMFs. This study is geared
towards narrowing research gap existing in the area of GMFs, and to provide a solid
foundation on which other research works can be done in Ghana. The study is also
relevant for policy making and implementation. In the first place, it will inform the
biotechnology companies about the views of the people. The findings of the study will
inform policy-makers to create the right regulatory policies with regard to GMFs.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
10
1.5 Research Questions
1. What is the level of awareness of the University of Ghana students on GMOs and
GMFs?
2. What are the sources of information about GMFs?
3. What are the potential perceived-health effects of using GMFs?
1.6 Objectives
1.6.1 General Objective
To find out the perceptions about genetically modified foods (GMFs) and its perceived
effects on health among University of Ghana students
1.6.2 Specific Objectives
1. To determine the level of awareness of students of the University of Ghana on
GMOs and GMFs
2. To explore the sources of information about genetically modified foods
3. To investigate the perceived health effects of using GM Foods among University
of Ghana students
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
11
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This section provides a review of existing literature to understand the extent to which
earlier studies have documented key issues in people’s perception of GMOs and GMFs.
The literature review covers the following areas: awareness, information and perception
of the potential benefits and risks of GMFs.
2.1.1 Brief History of GMOs
The introduction of GM foods in the USA and Europe has a long and complex history.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the debate was led by scientists with little divergence
between Europe and the USA. The commencement gene technology or recombinant
DNA technology started 1973, when a US laboratory first managed the in vitro transfer
of a gene from one species to another (Scholderer, 2004). This scientific sensation caused
much euphoria around the world. In 1974, the geneticist Paul Berg and a number of
colleagues published a letter to the editor of Science, calling for a moratorium on the use
of the new technique until potential biohazards had been evaluated (Peterson, 2010).
However, 1975, the scientists lifted the self-imposed moratorium concluding that the
technology did not pose any inherent dangers that were beyond conventional risk
assessment procedures. In 1976, the US National Institutes of Health issued technical
guidelines for laboratory safety, which were adopted in similar form throughout the
world. In the 1980s, the technology began to yield industrial applications on a massive
scale (Scholderer, 2004). It was adopted widely throughout the pharmaceutical industry,
followed by certain sectors of the industrial chemicals industry, including those involved
in the production of enzymes, vitamins and other food additives for use in food
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
12
processing. The first deliberate release of a GM organism (GMO) into the environment
in 1986 prompted widespread attention (Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 1999). After years of
litigation, the US released the first transgenic microorganism into the environment (a
microbe resistant to low temperatures). This provoked a shift in the public debate, both
in terms of the actors involved and in terms of the frames of reference of the debate
(Scholderer, 2004).
2.1.2 Awareness and Interest of GMOs/GMFs
Angus Reid World Poll result indicate that consumer awareness is fairly high on the
global scale with understanding being the greatest in Germany, Australia and the U.K. In
North America, 65 percent Americans and 79 percent Canadians are aware of the issue
but understanding remains low (Sophia & Powell, 2000) . Furthermore, on the global
scale, more than four in ten consumers (ranging from 44 per cent to 58 per cent) said that
they only have "little" understanding about GMFs (Sophia & Powell, 2000). With 54
percent of Americans and 64 percent of Canadians expressing willingness to learn more
about GMFs shows that individuals want to learn more about GMFs(Sophia & Powell,
2000). Suggestion from a study states that increased awareness of GM technology will
also increase consumer demand for choice between GM and non-GMFs (Viljoen, Dajee,
& Botha, 2006). Similarly, a study was conducted on consumers’ awareness of GMFs
regarding three terms relating to modern biotechnology. The results showed that the
highest level of awareness was hybrid breeding technology (91%), followed by gene
(85%) and biotechnology (77%). Additionally, the result of a study conducted among
students of Turkish secondary schools indicated that most of the students (87%) had high
awareness regarding GM product (Suleyman & Tuna, 2011).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
13
Anderson et al. (2005) further worked on a study of Hallman and Metcalfe (2003). They
studied North Dakota shoppers’ perceptions of GM foods. Their findings were similar to
Hallman et al. (2003) albeit, the population surveyed by Wachenheim and Lesch was
considerably more rural. However, they found awareness and general knowledge of GMF
products to be very low even in the largely agrarian state. Shoppers’ knowledge about
the existence of GM ingredient in their food product was low and they also viewed
biotechnology much favorable when applied in plants as compared to animals. They
inclined to agree that the use of genetic modification would be appropriate to feed the
over-growing population of the world (Hallman et al., 2003).
Despite the contradictory debate about GMFs, a study in Europe showed that people are
fairly interested in this issue. The result of the study revealed that majority (56%) of the
respondents fairly or very interested in the issue of GM Food (Poortinga & Pidgeon,
2004).
South Africa has been very active in terms of growing commercial GMOs on the African
continent. Some GMOs available in South Africa include insect resistant and herbicide
tolerant maize, insect and herbicide tolerant cotton and herbicide tolerant soybean (South
Africa Department of Agriculture, 2005). In South Africa 24% of yellow maize, 10% of
white maize, 50% of soybean and 85% of cotton account for biotech crops production
(James & Isa, 2009). The suggestion here is that GMOs being grown commercially in
South Africa since 1997, however, the level of awareness is very little; albeit,
government and non-government organization (NGOs) making information on GMOs
available (Viljoen et al., 2006).
A perception study in Ghana with a sample size of one thousand two hundred
participants; was conducted among four different categories of participants (academia,
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
14
research institute, government ministries and ordinary Ghanaian) revealed that 50% or
more from all categories were interested in GMOs and GMFs. Additionally, the level of
interest was high among academia (82%) and those from research institutes (68%) (Buah,
2011).
2.1.3 The Effects of Information on Perception
Generally, Public information is acknowledged to be more credible and more influential
than company-controlled communication (Dean, 2004). By implication negative
publicity has the potential to damage the image of an innovation and vice versa. This
could be linked to high credibility, negative effect, a tendency for negative information
to outweighed positive information in the evaluation of people, objects and innovation
(Mizerski, 1982). According to Dean, (2004), because the media has a preference for
reporting bad news. Therefore, companies are more likely to receive bad press rather than
positive press. The perceptions of the public with regards to GMFs are the influence of
the context information received from media or other sources. Mostly information
submitted by both proponents and opponents about GMFs to the public is filed with
contradictory messages and contested claims. It has been suggested that conflicting
information from different sources would lead to social uncertainty (Tuffour, Sedegah,
Nana, & Akyiaa, 2013; Ekici & Sancak, 2011).
Genetic Modification and GMFs had become one of the most opposed innovations in
recent years (Bonny, 2003). Usually, biotechnology institutions and government
organizations are seen as the proponents of this technology whilst consumer
organization, NGOs and environmental pressure groups are viewed as cautious
opponents (Dean & Shepherd, 2007a) . Information from these sources to the public is
predominant with contradictory messages and contested claims. Research shows that
general reading of conflicting information from different sources would lead to social
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
15
uncertainty (Dean & Shepherd, 2007a). In addition receiving conflicting information
reduced the credibility of information presented. The implication of this may cause
people to perceiver greater risks of GMFs (Dean & Shepherd, 2007a). Again, Frewer &
Shepherd, (1994 ) attributed information relating GM to different sources of varying
credibility. They found that regardless of the identity of the information source, the
information increased the perceived risk of the participants’ regarding the technology.
Therefore, this suggests that the source is not responsible for the increased risk perception
but rather the information. However, under the same experimental model, Frewer and
colleagues indicated that public perceptions of risks were higher from a distrusted source
and lower from a trusted source.
Trust in risk information about food-related dangers may be as important a determinant
of consumer reactions as the content of the risk information (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley,
& Shepherd, 1996). Information and perception literature have indicated the role of trust
as being of critical importance. An individual’s perception (risks/benefits) is influence
by the content of the message received. (Frewer et al., 1996). This suggests the content
of the information has strong effect on people’s perception. Similarly, a study on people’s
preference for consensus ambiguous information or precise but conflicting information
from different sources, concluded that contradictory sources are considered as less
credible as compared to consensus ones. In addition the total view of the people in the
study suggested that conflicting sources are less knowledgeable, less believable and less
reliable than consensus source. The implication therefore, is that people prefer consensus
information in their decision making because they view these source as more credible
(Smithson, 1999).
Viscusi (1997) studied the effects of receiving conflicting high/low risk assessments
from one or two sources, the government and/or industry. Viscusi’s concept suggest a
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
16
conflict between two different sources (as opposed to two different estimates given by
the same source) there is a tendency for a higher estimator to be regarded as compared
to lower estimator due to the influence by the higher estimator. The possibility of this is
regardless of whether higher risk estimator was from the government or industry.
However, both estimators were taken into consideration when it sources were the same.
Viscusi argues that it is the conflict between the sources of the information that affects
the risk perception rather than the two pieces of evidence. Furthermore, He concludes
that source’s credibility rating is influenced by one’s high or low risk estimator. It is
essential to accentuate that Viscusi’s study attributed the same information to two
different sources (government and industry) and assumed that the government would be
considered to be more trustworthy than industry, which may not be the case. However,
his study suggested that conflicting information from experts increases people’s risk
perception and reduces the credibility of some of the sources. Whereas, risk information
from a government agency among other conflicting information did not alter the way the
public viewed the agency message but rather enhanced the image of the government
agency. However information from the government agency in the midst of other
conflicting information did affect people’s perceptions of GM food technology.
Also, Dean (2000) investigated the distinctive influence of conflicting information by
juxtaposing participants’ perceptions when they read either a single message or
conflicting messages. Suggestion from his result indicated that reading conflicting
information does not affect the way people see the content of the message, but rather
affects their perception of the source involved. Information given amidst other
conflicting information, made the source appear more positive than when they gave the
same information on their own. This was true for both trusted and distrusted sources. In
addition people’s perception of the risk was only affected by the content of the risk
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
17
message and the identity of the source giving the message and not by conflict (Markon
& Lemyre, 2013).
According to Frewer et al. (1996) some identified source of information on GMFs were
television, newspapers, magazines, radio, industry (a definition which includes
supermarket information and manufacturer label on the packets), friends and medical
source. The result of the study indicated the media as the most important and frequent
source of information about GMF-related information, with 65% of the respondents’
source being media-related. Similarly, in the work of Frewer et al. (2000), the use of
television, radio, newspapers and public lectures were the main sources of information
for Chinese respondents. However, a study in Ghana indicated that workshops (60%) and
friends (40%) were the major sources of GMFs and biotechnology information for
respondents from researchers and academia. Whereas, the electronic media had not been
a source of information for any of the respondents (Buah, 2011).
In summary, most studies show that conflicting messages increase risk perceptions,
especially when these estimates are given by identifying sources. Also the content of the
information and its source credibility has effects on a person’s perception of benefits or
risks of GMFs technology. However the studies do not give a clear image as to how the
credibility of the sources is affected.
2.2.0 Perception on Potential Benefits and Risks of GMO/GMFs
The decisions of individuals regarding the use of biotechnology in food production are
becoming very important due to recent biotechnological research and the seemingly
growth in the world’s population. As seen in almost all emerging technology the public
associate both benefits and risks with technological processes applied to food production
(Frewer, Shepherd, & Sparks, 1994). An individual’s reaction to the use of biotechnology
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
18
and subsequent acceptance of the products may be largely influenced by perception of
both benefits and risks associated with the technology and its applications (Onyango, Jr,
& Schilling, 2005; Hossain et al., 2002). The case where perceived risks outweigh
perceived benefits associated with the technology and its application, and then
acceptance may be very low. Some factors that may affect risks perceptions may
originate from health related and technological hazards(Sjöberg, 2008).
Social risks could be defined as risks which may be perceived as having the tendency of
widespread and generalized consequences if they should occur. Social risks are perceived
to have relatively low threat for self, greater for people, and greatest for society (Joffe,
2003). This phenomenon could be explained as individual’s belief that negative events
are relatively unlikely to happen to them, this is referred as “optimistic bias’ (Frewer et
al., 1994). It has been debated that social risks could be better explained as the need by
an individual to have control over a situation. The illusion of control theory states that
one’s perception of his personal control over potential hazards reduces the subjective
probability of potential risk associate with hazard (Hosking, Liu & Bayly, 2010; Sj,
Moen, & Rundmo, 2004). This theory would predict that, when individuals are in a
position where they perceive that they have some level of control over risk, then
judgments of invulnerability become equal to those made when people are in control.
Research has shown that biotechnology as applied to food production represents more
threat at the societal level than at the individual level (Frewer et al., 2002). The societal
level is where control of the technology is seen (Frewer et al., 2002) and it would be
predicted that personal threat associated with the technology is equal to that of the people.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
19
2.2.1 Perceived Benefits
Biotechnology advocates indicate the potential benefits to the society through reduction
of hunger and malnutrition, prevention and cure of diseases and production of general
wellbeing (Isserman, 2001;UNDP, 2001)
According to Angus Reid World Poll consumers believed that the main benefits of
agricultural biotechnology consist of yield in production, followed by better food quality
and pesticides. However, some of the said GMFs provide no benefits. The findings from
this poll indicated that the overall support of GM technology is influenced by the
perception of benefits. Canadians were more likely to associate biotechnology benefits
to nutrient and the quality of the food (Blaine, Kamaldeen, 2002). Also many studies had
shown that individuals are very selective about which benefits outweigh the risks of the
biotechnology. It was revealed that health related and environmental benefits very
important as compared to taste or cost benefits (Henseleit, Kubitzki, & Herrmann, 2009;
Cormick, 2005; Blaine, Kamaldeen, 2002).
Americans being at the top level in terms of support for biotechnology and its
applications, were more likely to think biotechnology as beneficial to them and their
family (Finucane & Holup, 2005; Iposos-Reid 2000; IFIC 2001).
Again proponents emphasize the benefits of GMO to mankind in the form of improve
supply of food, fuel, and medicine as well as the reduction of insecticide and labour cost
which provide economic benefits to the adopters (Isserman, 2001). In addition, GM crops
have contributed significantly to reducing the release of green gas emission from
agricultural practices. This result from less fuel use and carbon storage from reduced
tillage with GM crops. In 2012, thus equivalent of 27 billion kg of carbon dioxide was
removed from the atmosphere by GM crops (Brookes & Barfoot, 2014).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
20
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that about 805
million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world were suffering from chronic
undernourishment in 2012-2014. Almost all the hungry people, 791 million, live in
developing countries, representing 13.5 percent, of the population of developing
countries. There are 11 million people undernourished in developing countries (FAO,
2014). The use of biotechnology and its application in agriculture could address the issue
of food security and malnutrition. Ghana can benefit from this tremendously to curb the
incidences of anaemia; vitamin A and iodine deficiency across the country.
2.2.2 Perceived Risks
Biotechnology has caused significant advance in agriculture production and other
industries such as the pharmaceutical industry to improve the quality of life for citizens
in the United States and other countries (Malcolm & Sinnett, 2015). However the
advancements were not made without initial risk. Despite the advancement in
biotechnology aims to improve the quality and productivity, uncertain consequences
categorize such innovations as risky (Malcolm & Sinnett, 2015). “Agricultural
production is a risky endeavour”, (Pruitt, 2014). Agricultural production risks can range
from environmental issues, technology experiments, and food safety matters. Uncertain
repercussions cause high opposition from the public because they “are usually associated
with large-scale, long-term, and trans-boundary hazards with which society has no or
only limited experience” (Pruitt, 2014). Many European policy makers’ and public
consumers are concerned about GMO effects on the environment, economy and human
health (Marris, 2001). Opponents of biotechnology/GMFs insist that these new
technologies have threat to human life, to existing plant, to animal species and to the
environment. Even though opponents of GMFs agreed that GM crops produce better
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
21
yields, however, they stress that devastating risks to public health, safety and
environment are inherent in GM research, production and commercialization (Buah,
2011).They further view the use biotechnology as a needless interference with nature that
may lead to unknown and potentially disastrous consequences (Sajeev et al., 2011). Some
oppose the use of genetic technologies in agricultural production, alleging the perceive
risks to humans health and environment, also others oppose it citing moral, ethical and
social concerns (Hossain, Onyango, Adelaja, Schilling, & Hallman, 2002; Linacre et al.,
2005). A study conducted in southwestern zone of Nigeria which consist of 6 states
(Lagos, Ogun, Osun,Oyo, Ekiti and Ondo) among Scientists in the faculties of
Agriculture and Biological sciences from nine universities. The findings of the study
revealed that 45 percent of the study participants agreed that GMFs with a higher content
of digestible iron are likely to benefit consumers. However, forty eight percent (47.8%)
of the study participants agreed that GM food with possible allergy risk should be fully
labelled (Oladele & Akinsorotan, 2007).
Another argument from the opponent is that most testing of GMFs is carried out by
biotech companies. The most potential threat among GM food is to create new allergies
or harmful toxin that may cause sickness or death in vulnerable populations (Buah, 2011).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
22
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the methodology of the study. This includes the study design, the
study area, variables, study population, sampling, data collection techniques, quality
control, data processing and analysis, ethical consideration and pretesting of the
questionnaire.
3.2 Study Design
This was a cross sectional survey using a structured questionnaire, which included
demographic information, knowledge on GMOs, and perceived effects of GMFs on
health. The questionnaire was made up of both closed and open ended questions which
allowed respondents to present their own perspective beyond the coded category
provided.
3.3 Study Area (additional information must be added)
The study took place at the University of Ghana, Legon campus. The University of Ghana
is located on the Legon hill about twelve kilometres north-west of the centre of Accra on
the Accra- Dodowa road. It is located on longitude 50 38’3”N and latitude 00 11’13”W
(UG website, 2008). University of Ghana operates on collegiate system and comprises
of the following: College of Basic and Applied Sciences, College of Education, College
of Health Sciences, College of Humanities. Each college is made up of different schools
and under each school has departments.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
23
3.4 Variables
The dependent variable was perception of potential health outcome of GMFs whilst the
independent variables were information (content of message, source of information and
credibility of source), beliefs (perceived benefits of GMFs and perceived risks of GMFs),
sensory and non-sensory characteristics (taste, texture, nutrient content), techniques in
food production (GM technology, organic fertilizer, inorganic fertilizer) and attitude
towards GMFs.
3.5 Study Population
The study population was the students of the University of Ghana. University of Ghana
had an estimated number of the 30,000 student population (undergraduates and
postgraduates). The study involved male and female students who were 18 years and
above. This study population is selected because it is an educational institution and they
were expected to be knowledgeable about the study topic.
3.5.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria were that the respondent must be a male or female student, aged
18 years and above, and a student in the University of Ghana. The study excluded
teachers and other staffs of the University of Ghana.
3.6 Sampling
3.6.1 Sample Size Calculation
Epi info was used to calculate the sample size. The student population was estimated at
30,000. Based on an expected frequency of 85%, 95% confidence level and a design
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
24
effect of 1.0, the total sample size was calculated to be 218 with 10% non-response rate
included.
3.6.2 Sampling Method
Stratified sampling method was used to stratify the target population into levels for the
study to obtain a representative sample. To cover UG population thoroughly as possible,
and avoid sampling only those people from a particular location. The population was
classified into level 100, 200, 300, 400, Master’s degree and PhD. Averagely 34
participants were selected from each category. Study participants in all the different
classifications were selected by simple random sampling generated by computer-based
programs, in Microsoft Excel. For example, a generated sampling frame of 1,3,4,8, etc.
determined that the views of the first, third, fourth and eighth person encountered by the
survey were sampled. This continues until the average number for each class was
reached. Individuals of 18 years and above were selected for the study.
3.7 Data Collection Techniques
The study was quantitative, which employed the use of questionnaires. The questionnaire
was developed based on the objectives of the study and literature reviewed. The
questionnaire was made up of both closed and open ended questions to allow respondents
to present their own perspective beyond the coded category provided. Because the
university community is a literate population, the questionnaire was self-administered.
Adequate instructions and information were provided to aid respondents fill the
questionnaire correctly. The time spanned for the data collection was one month.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
25
3.8 Quality Control
The data collected was checked to ensure that all information have been properly
collected, completeness was also checked. The case where the questionnaire is not
properly filled, the respondent was given a new questionnaire to answer. However, in a
situation where the respondent wishes to discontinue answering the questionnaire, that
respondent was replaced and the corresponding questionnaire was discarded. Computer
data entry and analysis was done. The data were entered into an excel spreadsheet and
exported into STATA 13. Double data entry and cleaning was done to reduce data entry
errors and validated authenticity.
3.9 Pre-test
The questionnaire was pre-tested on a sample of 20 students (both male and Female) of
Central University, Accra. Central University students were used of because they share
some similarities in the socio-demographic features with the University of Ghana
student. This allowed a few modifications in the questionnaire such as making the
sentences clearer and reliable for the study respondents.
3.9.1 Validity and Reliability
There was no research assistance so the researcher. The data was collected properly. All
questionnaires returned were checked for mistakes and completeness. Questionnaires
with unclear responses or which had missing information that could not be clarified was
excluded. The data was entered in an excel spreadsheet and exported into STATA 13
(StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Double data entry and cleaning was done to
reduce data entry errors and validated authenticity
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
26
3.10 Data Analysis
The statistical analysis was done using STATA 13. Preliminary analysis was carried out
to summarize the data on socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, awareness
of GMOs and GMFs, sources of information on GMOs and GMFs, perceptions of GMFs
into percentages and frequencies for descriptive purposes.
The level of awareness of the study respondents was measured based on the following
set of questions; whether a respondent has heard of GMOs and GMFs, the interest of the
respondent on GMOs and GMFs issues, the idea about GM Technology (GMT) and what
genetically modified foods are. The overall awareness level was examined using 4
questions. With the maximum accumulated score of 9, respondents who scored 0 to 4
were classified as low awareness level whilst those who scored 5 to 9 were classified as
high awareness.
The perceptions of the study respondents about GMOs and GMFs were examined by a
total of 12 questions consist of both closed and opened ended questions. The questions
asked could be categorized into four main themes, thus the preferred food source, the
perceived effect of GMFs on health, perceived effect of biotechnology and GMFs on the
environment and perceived potential risks or benefits associated with it.
The Pearson’s Chi square (χ2) and Fisher’s exact test analysis was used to determine the
association between the variables; the associations between socio-demographic
characteristics and level of awareness, socio-demographic characteristics and perception,
and socio-demographic characteristics and level of acceptability of GMFs. The
significant level of 5% was set for all statistical procedures.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
27
3.11 Ethical Considerations and issues
The researcher sought for ethical clearance from the Ghana Health Service. Consent was
sought from the Dean of students. The objective and rationale for the study was explained
to respondents and consent obtained.
The privacy and confidentiality of the respondents was secured. All information provided
by the respondents was kept confidential and data were locked in a cabinet and on
computers protected by passwords. The name and identity of the respondent were not
needed for the study. The information provided was only identified by a code number
and was treated strictly confidential. Respondent’s name did not appear or was not
mentioned in any part of the report of this study.
The respondents’ involvement in this study was only through an interview and was not
exposed to any form of risks. The subjects’ participation in the study was voluntary and
was not given any money or any kind of reward. All the information provided by the
respondents was used for the study.
3.12 Limitations of the study
As there are some form of limitations in all studies. This study also had a limitation: the
study relied on self-report from the respondents and the information given by the
respondents could not be verified, there may therefore be information bias.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
28
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results to address the objectives of the study. It begins with a
description of the demographic characteristics of participants in the study area. It also
shows the results of students’ awareness of genetically modified foods and their sources
of information. It further presents the perceptions of students in terms of potential
benefits and risks associated with GMOs and GMFs and its perceived potential health
effects.
4.2 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
A total of 194 participants took part in the study. They were made up of 51% males and
49% were females. The majority (59.3%) of the participants were between the ages of 18
to 27years. The mean age of the study respondents was 26.84 (SD=± 3.75). Most of the
respondents (88.8%) were single. Again, Majority of the study respondents (93.2%) were
Christians. On the educational status of the study participants, the majority of the
participants, 74.2% were undergraduate students and 24.8% were enrolled in post-
graduate programmes. (Table 1)
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
29
Table 1: Socio-Demographics characteristics of Study Respondents
Attribute Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male
Female
99
95
51
49
Age Group
18-27
28-37
38-47
115
53
26
59.3
27.3
13.4
Marital status
Single
Married
167
27
88.8
13.2
Religion
Christian
Muslim
144
50
93.3
6.7
Education Level
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
144
50
74.2
25.8
4.3: Awareness of GMOs and GMFs
The level of awareness of the study respondents was measured based on the following
set of questions; whether a respondent have heard of GMOs and GMFs, the interest of
the respondent on GMOs and GMFs issues, the idea about GM technology and what
genetically modified foods are. The overall awareness level was examined using 4
questions. With the maximum accumulated score of 9, respondents who scored 0 to 4
were classified as low awareness level whilst those who scored 5 to 9 were classified as
high awareness. The result of the study revealed that majority of study respondents
(90.7%) is aware of GMOs and GMFs whereas 9.3% of them had a low awareness level
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
30
(Table 2). This was confirmed in their knowledge regarding what GMFs mean; it was
revealed in result that 73.7% of the study participants had better knowledge of what
GMFs mean and understanding of its technology. Since this study is mainly centred on
GMFs the study respondents were asked to state their view on the availability of GMFs
in Ghana; 73.2% of them believed GMFs are present in Ghana while 26.8% said that
GMFs could not be found in Ghana. Those who indicated that GMFs are presented in
Ghana stated the supermarkets, markets and grocery as the major source of GMFs in
Ghana.
Table 2: Awareness on GMOs and GMFs
Awareness level on
GMOS/GMFs
Frequency Percentage
Low 18 9.3
High 176 90.7
Total 194 100
Figure 2: Sources of information on GMOs and GMFs
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00% 20.50% 20.90%
11.40%
6.00%
16.00%
10.20%
3.20%
11.90%
Source of information
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
31
4.4 Sources of Information
Responses as provided in Figure 1 indicate that television is the major source of
information to respondents representing 20.90%, followed by radio representing 20.50%.
Workshops were the least source of information concerning GMOs and GMFs. The
internet, peer groups, books and newspapers were also part of the source of information,
but were not a major source of information for respondents (Figure 2). Since the target
population is made up highly educated respondents, the study further determines the
extent to which they trust the various information sources with regards to credibility. The
table 2 below is a cross tabulation of the information source by the extent of trust. It can
be deduced that radio and television were the most trusted sources followed by internet,
lecturers, friends and newspapers
Table 3: Source of information and level of trust of source
Sources of
information
Highly Trusted
(N)
Lowly Trusted
(N)
Not Sure (N) Total
Radio 72 11 27 110
Television 71 19 22 112
Newspapers 40 9 12 61
Books 20 7 5 32
Internet 59 12 15 86
Lecturer/Teacher 42 5 8 65
Workshop 14 3 0 17
Friends 41 9 14 64
A * Multiple choice allowed
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
32
4.5 Relationships between socio-demographics variables and awareness level of
respondents
The associations between the socio-demographics and the level of awareness of the study
respondents was determined by running a bivariate (chi-square test) and (Fisher exact
test) analysis between them at 5% significance level.
The results from the bivariate analysis shows that there were no significant associations
between age, gender, marital status, educational level, religious affiliation, programme
of study and awareness levels (Table 4)
Table 4: Relationships between Socio-demographic characteristics and level of
awareness of GMOs and GMFs (N=194)
Characteristics Awareness level
N (%)
Chi-
square
P-value
Age
18-27
28-37
38-47
Low
10(8.7)
8(15.1)
0(0.0)
High
105(91.30)
45(23.2)
26(100)
**0.086
Sex
Male
Female
8(8.1)
10(10.5)
91(91.9)
85(89.5)
0.3444
0.557
Marital status
Single
Married
18(10.8)
0(0.0)
149(89.2)
27(100.0)
**0.082
Educational level
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
16(11.1)
2(4.0)
128(88.9)
48(96.0)
**0.109
Religion
Christian
Muslim
18(9.9)
0(0.0)
163(90.1)
11(13.0)
**0.615
Data are presented in frequency (N) and proportions (%); *p-value˂ 0.05; **p-value of fisher’s exact
test
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
33
4.6 Risk and benefits Perceptions about GMFs effects on health
The result of the study shows that 42.2% of the study respondents perceived consumption
of GMFs to be harmful to health; 32.0% indicated GMFs are not harmful to health and
25.8% reported that they are not sure of GMFs effects on health (Table 5).
On perceived risks of GMFs effect on health, the study respondents indicated that
consumption of GMFs poses some health related risks such as allergy and cancer in
humans. Other perceived side effects of GMFs indicated includes antibiotic resistance,
genetic mutation, unknown long term effects, deformity at birth, high blood pleasure,
infertility, heart related disease and chemical related diseases.
However, concerning health benefits associated with GMFs, the study participants held
the perception that, the consumption of GMFs has the potential to cure malnutrition;
enhanced nutrient content of foods with a specific example of GMT used to develop rice
with enhanced vitamin A. Additionally, some respondents opined that GMT is used to
develop insulin for diabetic patient. Others indicated that some GMFs are used as
vaccines to infer immunity in humans against invading pathogens. Albeit, high yield has
no direct correlation with health, however the majority of the study respondents indicated
high yield as one of the health benefits of GMFs.
On the risks and benefits perception of Genetic Modification Technology (GMT), 51.0%
of the respondents indicated the use of modern biotechnology in the production of GMFs
to make them higher in protein, nice taste and longer storage to be risky while 49.0% of
the respondents believed the technology was useful. The majority of the respondent
(43.3%), therefore, held the view that GMT should not be encouraged in the production
of food to enhance nutrients, taste and the shelf-life of foods (Table 5) with the reason
that is not safe to health. However, 65.5% of the participants indicated that the use of
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
34
GMT to make plant crops more resistant to insects and pest in order to increase yield as
useful and this was reflected in the majority of the participants (52.0%) indicating that
GMT in making crop plants resistant to insect and pests should be encouraged (Table 5).
Table 5: Perceptions about the effect of GMFs on health and perceptions about
the use of GMT
Perceptions Frequency
(N)
Percentage
(%)
GMFs effect on health
Harmful to health 82 42.2
Not harmful 62 32.0
Not sure
50 25.8
GM improved food nutrient
Useful 95 49.0
Risky
99 51.0
GM pest resistant crops
Useful 127 65.5
Risky
67 34.5
The use of GMT to increase food nutrient
Yes 67 34.5
No 84 43.3
Not sure
43 22.2
The use of GMT to make crops resistant to pests
Yes 101 52.0
No 62 32.0
Not sure 31 16.0
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
35
4.6.1 Association between socio-demographic characteristics and perception of
GMFs effects on health
The association between socio-demographics characteristics and perception of GMFs
effects on health were determined by running a bivariate (chi-square test) and (Fisher
exact test) analysis between them at 5% significance level.
The results of the bivariate analysis revealed that there were no significant association
between age, marital status, educational level, religious affiliation and the perception of
GMFs effect on health. However, there was a significant association between gender
(p=0. 021) and perception of GMFs effect on health; 49.0% of females indicated that
consumption of GMFs is harmful to health as compared to 34% of males who indicated
that consumption of GMFs is harmful to health. Similarly, 41% of the male study
respondents indicated that consumption of GMFs is not harmful to health while 23% of
the females indicated are harmful to health (Table 6).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
36
Table 6: Association between socio-demographics and perceptions of GMFs on
health (N=194)
Characteristics Harmful to
health
Not
harmful to
Health
Not Sure Chi
square
P value
Age group
>18
28-37
<47
53 (46.1)
19(35.9)
11(42.31)
38(33.0)
15 (28.3)
11(42.31)
24 (20.9)
19 (35.9)
4(15.4)
**0.206
Sex
Male
Female
34 (34.4)
49 (51.6)
41(41.4)
23 (24.2)
24 (24.2)
23 (24.2)
7.7154
*0.021
Edu. Level
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
62 (40.0)
21 (42)
44 (30.6)
20 (40.0)
38 (26.4)
9 (18.0)
2.0912
0.351
Marital status
Single
Married
72 (43.1)
11(40.8)
56 33.5)
8 (29.6)
39 (23.4)
8 (29.6)
0.5158
0.773
Religion
Christian
Muslim
80 (44.2)
3 (23.08)
59 (32.60)
5 (38.46)
42 (23.20)
5 (38.46)
*0.229
Data are presented in frequency (N) and proportions (%); χ2, Pearson’s chi-square value; *p-value˂ 0.05;
**p-value of fisher’s exact testl;
4.7 Other perceptions about GMOs and GMFs
Other perceptions about GMOs and GMFs of the study respondents covered the area of
the environment, preferred food production source and their level of acceptability of
GMFs.
4.7.1 Perception of GMOs on the environment
Table 6 summarizes the perceptions held about the impact of GMOs (GM crops) on the
environment. It was observed that 37.1% of the study participants held the perception
that GMOs have a negative impact of on the environment whilst 28.4% perceived GMOs
to have a positive impact on the environment. However, 34.5% of the respondents were
not sure about the impact of GMOs on the environment (Table 7).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
37
Table 7: Participants perception about the impact of GMOs on the environment
Response Frequency
Percentage
Positive
59
28.4
Negative
81
37.1
Not Sure
54
34.5
Total
194
100.0
4.7.2 Preferred Food production Source and the acceptability of GMFs if they
were cheaper
On the preferred source of food production, the majority of the respondents (73.7%)
preferred foods produced by organic means; 17.0% preferred foods produced using
inorganic fertilizer while only 9.3% of the respondents preferred foods produced using
GM technology (Table 8). The majority of the participants preferred organic foods
because they believe organic foods are safe for consumption, good for health and contain
no harmful chemicals which could be dangerous to the human health. They also indicated
that foods produced from organic sources nourish to grow nutritious foods.
The study respondents accentuated their opinion concerning the acceptability of GMFs
if they were cheaper
Table 8: Respondents’ preferred food production sources
Technique Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
GM Technology 18 9.3
Organic Fertilizer 143 73.7
Inorganic Fertilizer 33 17.0
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
38
4.7.3 Association of socio-demographics and acceptability of GMFs if they were
cheaper
A bivariate analysis was carried out between the socio-demographic characteristics of
the study respondents, level of awareness of the study participants and acceptability of
GMFs. The result showed in table 10.0 indicates that there was no significant association
between age, marital status, education level, religion and acceptability of GMFs.
Meanwhile, gender (p=0. 006) and program study (p=0. 034) were found to be
significantly associated with the acceptability of GMFs if they were cheaper (Table 10.0).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
39
Table 9: Association between socio-demographics and acceptability of GMFs if
they were cheaper
Characteristics
Will accept
N (%)
Will not
accept
N (%)
Chi
square
P value
Age Group
>18
28-37
<47
53(46.1)
26(49.0)
13(50)
62(53.9)
27(50.9)
13(50)
0.2083
0.906
Sex
Male
Female
59(59.6)
34.7(40.0)
40(40.4)
65.3(60.0)
12.0156
*0.001
Education level
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
67(46.5)
26(52.0)
77(53.5)
24(48.0)
0.1795
0.672
Religion
Christian
Muslim
88(48.6)
9(69.2)
93(51.4)
4(30.8)
**0.150
Marital Status
Single
Married
82(49.1)
10(37.0)
85(50.9)
17(63.0)
1.3568
0.244
Data are presented in frequency (N) and proportions (%); *p-values˂ 0.05; **p-value of the Fisher exact
test
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
40
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the findings of the study taking into account available literature.
The purpose of the study was to examine the perception of GMOs and GMFs and its
perceived risks and benefits on health among Students of University of Ghana. The
objectives were to determine the level of awareness of GMOs/GMFs, to explore the
sources of information of GMFs and to investigate the perceived health effects of GMFs.
The study found high awareness levels of GMOs/GMFs among university of Ghana
students. The study found television and radio as the major sources from which the
students access information on GMOs and GMFs. Out of the total participants, 73.2% of
them believed that GMFs are in Ghana. Socio-demographic characteristics were found
not to influence awareness level. Generally, the study respondents identified
consumption of GMFs as harmful to health. These findings are discussed in detail in the
following paragraphs.
5.2 Awareness level and Knowledge
Issue regarding GMFs and GMOs is very crucial one worldwide and since its inception,
people from different part of the world have been concern and shown key interest (Buah,
2011). This may explain why, in this study all the participants showed interest in
participating in the survey. The majority of the study participants (90.7%) had high
awareness level on GMOs and GMFs. This findings corroborate with previous studies
that showed high level of awareness of GMOs and GMFs among University Students in
Malaysia (Amin, Azlan, Hamdan, Samian, & Haron, 2011) and Slovakia (Prokop,
Lešková, Kubiatko, & Diran, 2007) and among geography teachers in Turkey (Demirci,
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
41
2008). Findings from this study was also in trend with awareness level of GMFs among
academia, research institutes and governments ministries in Ghana (Buah, 2011).
However, findings from this study compared by a study conducted at three different
points of sale: supermarkets, kiosks (small roadside shops) and posho mills (mechanical
mills for maize) in Nairobi Kenya where 62% of the study participants were totally
unaware of biotechnology and GMFs (Kimenju, De Groote, Karugia, Mbogoh, & Poland,
2005). This disparity could be because 58.3% of the study respondents in the Kenyan
study were below the university level of education as compared to the current study
where all the study participants were university students; pursuing either first degree or
postgraduate degree and for that matter they are academic imbibed and enlightened and
can easily access information. High level of awareness of biotechnology and GMFs
among University of Ghana students was reflected in their knowledge about GMFs. The
study results showed that study participants (73.7%) had good knowledge about what
GMFs mean and understand the application of GM technology. This is consistent with a
similar study conducted in Indonesia (Februhartanty, Widyastuti, & Iswarawanti, 2007)
which found that 70% of study participants had good knowledge about GMFs.
In this study, the respondents’ awareness level was found not to be the influence of socio-
demographic characteristics. This observed difference could be explained by the special
knowledge of GMFs possessed by that age group. It could also be as a result of the
skewness of the data (table 4).
5.3 Sources of information on biotechnology and GMFs
With regards to accessing information, this study identified the mass media (television
and radio) as the main sources of information on biotechnology and GMFs. This is
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
42
consistent with findings from previous study that showed that the main sources
information on biotechnology is the media (television, radio and newspaper (Kimenju et
al., 2005). Again, in the work of Frewer et al., (2004), television and radio were identified
as part of major sources of information on GMOs and GMFs. Also it was confirmed by
studies of Curtis, McCluskey, & Wahl, (2004) and Tekedere, Taban & Çaliskan, (2011)
that the mass media is very important sector on GMOs and GMFs issues. The public now
spend much time watching television and listening to the radio because is the major
source of entertainment and education, and it appears to have greatly impacted on the
public awareness on GMFs. The media have been identified as an important tool to
disseminate health information (Haque, Arafat, Roy, Khan, Majbah Uddin, 2014). Due
to GMFs effect on public health (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011), it has become the subject
of ongoing debate which usually takes place in the electronic media. This could be the
underlying reasons why the electronic media is the major source of information.
The television and radio were found to be the most trusted sources of information on
GMFs. This is contrasted by study which found that television, radio, newspapers and
other media outlets were not well trusted by the international public( Blaine, Kamaldeen,
2002). Several studies had also found that people trusted accessing information from
environment and consumer organizations as well as medical profession (Bonny, 2003;
Gaskell, 2000)
5.4 Risk and benefits Perceptions about GMFs effects on health
In the past biotechnology was basically used for protecting plants from disease and
harmful insects. However, from the last two decades it has spread its tentacles to different
areas. Current research in biotechnology focuses on health, industry, environment, and
agriculture (Demirci, 2008).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
43
With regards to health, more than one-third of the study respondents expressed fears
about the health effects of GM foods. About forty two percent of the study participants
perceived that consumption of GMFs could be harmful to human health. They thought
people could suffer from allergy, cancer, antibiotic resistant, infertility after consumption
of GMFs. The findings of this study is consistent with an earlier study (Kimenju et al.,
2005). This could be argued that it was “misinformation’ stirred up by activists circulated
by the media, which led the study respondents to view GMFs as harmful to health. The
implication of GMFs on health has become public health concern (Maghari & Ardekani,
2011). There seems to be no established empirical evidence about the risk of GMFs in
relation to health. This has led to much speculation about GMFs effect on health. This
could also account for the negative perception of the study participants concerning
GMFs. However, a significant number of the respondents (32.0%) believed that
consumption of GMFs has positive effect on health. Most of those who believe that
GMFs has positive effect on health assigned their reasons to it improved nutritional
value. This observation is similar to an earlier study conducted in Indonesia among
agricultural scientist which found that 39% of the study participants which perceived
GMFs consumption as positive to health associated their reason to the improved
nutritional value (Februhartanty et al., 2007). Some study participants also believed that
use of GMFs as vaccine to infer immunity in human is a very important benefit to human
health. For example in the whole of South East Asia; GM potatoes are required to meet
annual demand for hepatitis B vaccine (Key, Ma, & Drake, 2008).
Potential benefits are seen from GMFs (Kimenju et al., 2005). However, in general,
participants did not see GMFs to be as healthy as its organic counterpart nor did they feel
very strongly about the health attributes associated with GMFs. The study participants
perceived organic food products to be more closely linked to positive health attributes
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
44
compared to GMFs. This observation is consistent to a study conducted among students
at North Dakota State University in Fargo and the University of North Dakota in Grand
Forks which found that people preferred organic foods because it’s more safe and
healthier (Anderson et al., 2005).
On the other hand, there is a lack of scientific data concerning environmental and health
effects from both industrial and public research sources (Pryme & Lembcke,
2003;Pusztai, 2002; Zdziarski, Edwards, Carman, & Haynes, 2014). Furthermore, there
is little empirical evidence that eating today’s GMFs is unhealthy, except in rare cases of
allergenicity (Pryme & Lembcke, 2003; Pusztai, 2002; Zdziarski, Edwards, Carman, &
Haynes, 2014). GMFs have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the
world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (Key et al., 2008). Therefore,
conclusion drawn by scientific panels sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences,
the British Royal Society, and the World health Organization, and other reputable
institutions stated that Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs) are both safe to human and
the environment, however, they accentuated the need for careful research and oversight
(Chen & Li, 2007; Appell, 2014).
Generally, the use of GMT to produce foods with enhanced nutrient was perceived by
study participants to have both potential benefits and risk; 51% of the study respondents’
perceived the use of GM technology to produce food as risky while 49% believed it’s
useful. However, with regards to the use of GMT to make crops more resistant to pest
and diseases; majority of the respondents (63.9%) believes that is very useful. Similarly,
previous studies have shown more positive views towards GM when used as crop disease
resistant as compared to food enhancement generally (McComas, Besley, & Steinhardt,
2014; Anunda, Njoka, & Shauri, 2010).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
45
5.5 Other perceptions about GMOs and GMFs
On the issue on the environment, the findings of this study corroborate with Sloan (2000)
study. The previous study reported that consumers perceived organic food production as
environmentally friendly, however using GMT in food production is perceived as less
environmentally friendly and that consumers are unaware of the benefits that GM has to
the environment (Siró, Kápolna, Kápolna, & Lugasi, 2008). It was revealed in this study
that participants who believe GMOs has negative impact on the environment are much
more concern about the unknown effect on the environment. However, a significant
number of the study participants held positive perception of GMOs impact on the
environment with believe that GM crops uses less chemicals. .
5.6 The Relationship between Gender and Perception
Generally, the findings from this present study showed that female had more unfavorable
perceptions of GMO and GMFs. There were significant relationships between perception
of GMFs effect on health, GMOs Impact on the environment, the acceptability of GMFs
and gender. Furthermore, it was revealed that females perceived more risks in relation to
GMFs effect on health and also to the application of GMT as compared to their male
counterpart. This observation is in trend with National Science report which found that
there is significant gender gap in attitude towards genetic modification, with female
considerably more likely than men to believe that the risk outweighed the benefits (Blaine
& Kamaldeen, 2002). Similarly, the findings of this study also showed that males were
more likely to accept GMFs if they were cheaper as compared to females. However the
findings is consistent with the hypothesis (Moerbeek & Casimir, 2005). Again the current
findings of this study is also supported by other studies (Buah, 2011; Moerbeek &
Casimir, 2005; James & Burton, 2003; Anunda, Njoka, & Shauri, 2010) which detected
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
46
difference in perception according to gender, mainly, females, had more negative attitude
towards GMFs. In a related study, (Burton, Rigby, Young & James, 2001) concluded that
females shoppers were willing to pay more premiums to avoid GMFs than males,
suggesting less acceptability of GMFs among females. Moreover, studies have revealed
that women perceive lower benefits and are less likely to accept GMT then men (Siegrist,
Cvetkovich, & Roth, 2000; Costa-Font, Gil, & Traill, 2008). These results indicate a
significant divergence exists between men and women regarding their opinions about
genetic modification of crops and foods. Since the study was made up highly educated
participants, therefore, the disparity between male and female attitude towards
biotechnology and GMFs could not be explained by lack of knowledge of biotechnology.
However, they may be explained by variation in trust, values and subjective norms. This
implies that views and perception of gender with regards to GMOs and GMFs is very
important to be considered in making informed decision for the public.
5.7 Application of the Conceptual Framework to Perception about GMFs
From the conceptual framework the content of information and its source influence
consumer or individual attitudes, beliefs and perceptions regarding GMFs. Also its shows
that attitude has greatest influence on perception. Favorable attitudes/unfavorable
attitudes depends on the subjective thinking of individuals about GMFs. The conceptual
framework was supported by Fishbein Multi-attribute Model (Fishbein, 1963) states that
an attitude towards a product is based on knowledge about the product itself as well as
its attributes, which is referred to as the so-called ‘bottom-up’ formation of attitude. The
results from this study revealed that respondents widely accessed information on GMFs
from mainly the mass media (television and radio) and other sources which reflected in
the high awareness on GMFs recorded among the respondents. This simply means that
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
47
perception form by the respondents about GMFs was largely influence by the kind of
information received from the mass media, as an individual’s perception (risks/benefits)
is influence by the content of the message received (Frewer et al., 1996). Also the
conceptual framework shows that process or techniques used in production of the
products influence attitude about GMFs. The result revealed that majority (73.7%) of the
study respondents preferred organic fertilizer source of food production followed
In conclusion, the results of the study revealed that providing information on GMFs will
help improve people’s knowledge about GMFs, perceptions about the potential health
outcomes of GMFs and in turn develop positive attitude towards GMFS. The results of
this study supported the constructs of the conceptual framework.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
48
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
This study sought to investigate the perception of GMOs and GMFs and its perceived
risks and benefits on health among students of the University of Ghana.
This study revealed a high awareness of GMOs and GMFs among student of the
University of Ghana with majority of them indicating the availability of GMFs in Ghana.
The majority of the study respondents does understand what GMOs and GMFs mean and
comprehend the basic concept underpinning GMT.
University of Ghana Students accessed their information on GMOs and GMFs mainly
from the television and radio. Additionally the study revealed television and radio were
the most trusted sources of information on GMOs and GMFs for the study participants.
Generally, the study participants moderately held risk perception about GMOs and
GMFs. Averagely, the study participants believed that consumption of GMFs could pose
health risk to individuals. However, it was revealed that the majority of the study
participants supported the use of GMT to produce crops that resist disease caused by
insects and pests. Furthermore, it was also found that more females perceived GM
products to have health risk compared to their male counterpart.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
49
6.2 Recommendations
6.2.1 Education
The study revealed a high awareness about GMOs and GMFs. However, emphasis must
also be given to educating people about the technology by providing them factual
information.
The mass media (television and radio) can serve as a starting point for effective targeted
communication on GMFs in the future. Television and radio should be used as effective
media to disseminate and educate students on GMOs and GMFs issues. This same media
strategy could also be extended to the general public in terms of awareness creation and
educational campaigns to help the general public make well informed decisions and
become actively involved in the decision making process.
6.2.2 Policy
Based on the findings of the study, it seems to be a common knowledge to the majority
of the study participants that GMFs are present in Ghana. The implication therefore is
that, policy-makers must consider the issue of GMFs and bring all appropriate
stakeholders on board so as to discuss the way forward to make the right and appropriate
GM policies.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
50
6.2.3 Research
Finally, studies tracking public opinion should be conducted regularly, in order to
determine awareness levels, capture the impact of awareness activities, the perceptions
and reveal trends. Studies should be extended to other tertiary institutions, smaller towns,
rural areas, and urban areas in Ghana in order to include these segments of the population
in the national discourse.
Gender has been identified to predict attitudes towards GMOs and GMFs. It is therefore
recommended that more studies should be carried out to unearth the underpinning causes
behind the disparities. This will inform appropriate measures to address the issues on
what is lacking and needed for further improvement.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
51
REFERENCES
Albert, D., Aschenbrenner, K. M., & Schmalhofer, F. (1989). Cognitive Choice
Processes and the Attitude-behavior Relation BT - Attitudes and behavioral. In
Attitudes and behavioral. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3504-0_3
Amin, L., Azlan, N. a a, Hamdan, M. F., Samian, a L., & Haron, M. S. (2011).
Awareness and knowledge on modern biotechnology. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 10(58), 12448–12456. http://doi.org/10.5897/AJB11.1055
Anderson, J. C., Wachenheim, C. J., & Lesch, W. C. (2005). Perceptions of g enetically
m odified and o rganic f oods and p rocesses : n orth d akota c ollege s tudents,
(571).
Anne Ingeborg Myhr, T. T. (1999). The Precautionary Principle Applied to Deliberate
Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Microbial Ecology in
Health and Disease, 11(8), 65–74. http://doi.org/10.1080/089106099435790
Anunda, H. N., Njoka, F. M., & Shauri, S. H. (2010). Assessment of Kenyan public
perception on genetic engineering of food crops and their products. Journal of
Applied Biosciences, 33, 2027–2036.
Appell, D. (2014). The Wilson Quarterly, 18(3), 82–85.
Bonny, S. (2003). Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining
rejection in France and Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(1), 47–68.
http://doi.org/10.2225/vol6-issue1-fulltext-4
Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2014). The global income and production effects 1996 –
2012 Economic impact of GM crops. GM Crops, (March),
http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28098. http://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28098
BUAH, J. . (2011). Public Perceptions of genetically modified foods in Ghana.
American Journal of Food Technology, 6(7), 542–554.
Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T., & James, S. (2001). Consumer attitudes to
genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of
Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 479–498. http://doi.org/10.1093/erae/28.4.479
Chen, M.-F., & Li, H.-L. (2007). The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified
foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 662–674.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.10.002
Cormick, C. (2005). Lies, Deep Fries, and Statistics!! The search for the truth between
public attitudes and public behaviour towards genetically modified foods. Choices,
20(4), 227–231.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
52
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of
and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food
policy. Food Policy, 33(2), 99–111. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002
Curtis, K. R., McCluskey, J. J., & Wahl, T. I. (2004). Consumer acceptance of
genetically modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum, 7(1-2),
70–75.
Dean, M., & Shepherd, R. (2007a). Effects of information from sources in conflict and
in consensus on perceptions of genetically modified food. Food Quality and
Preference, 18(2), 460–469. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.05.004
Dean, M., & Shepherd, R. (2007b). Effects of information from sources in conflict and
in consensus on perceptions of genetically modified food. Food Quality and
Preference, 18(2), 460–469. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.05.004
Demirci, A. (2008). Perceptions and attitudes of geography teachers to biotechnology :
A study focusing on genetically modified ( GM ) foods, 7(23), 4321–4327.
http://doi.org/10.5897/AJB08.817
Dwane Hal Dean. (2004). Consumer Reaction to Negative Publicity: Effects of
Corporate Reputation, Response, and Responsibility for a Crisis Event. Journal of
Business Communication, 41(2), 192–211.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0021943603261748
Ekici, K., & Sancak, Y. C. (2011). A perspective on genetically modified food crops.
African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(7), 1639–1642.
http://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR10.284
Februhartanty, J., Widyastuti, T. N., & Iswarawanti, D. N. (2007). Attitudes of
agricultural scientists in Indonesia towards genetically modified foods. Asia
Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 16(2), 375–380.
Finucane, M. L., & Holup, J. L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the
perceived risk of genetically modified food: An overview of the literature. Social
Science and Medicine, 60(7), 1603–1612.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.007
Frewer, L. J., Frewer, L. J., Miles, S., Miles, S., Marsh, R., & Marsh, R. (2002). The
Media and Genetically Modi ed Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Ampli
cation of Risk. Risk Analysis, 22(4).
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines
trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs.
Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 16(4),
473–486. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x
Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). Biotechnology and Food Production:
Knowledge and Perceived Risk. British Food Journal, 96(9), 26–32.
http://doi.org/10.1108/00070709410072562
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
53
Frewer, L., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., & Berdal, K. G.
(2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical
Toxicology, 42(7), 1181–1193. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002
Fukuda-Parr, S., & Birdsall, N. (2001). Human development report 2001: Making new
technologies work for human development. … Development …. Retrieved from
http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/handle/123456789/20137
Gaps, K., Genetically, C., Crops, M., Inventory, A., Nijhuis, E. H., Elsas, J. D. Van, &
Dueck, T. a. (2000). Crops of Uncertain Nature ?, (August).
Gaskell, G. (2000). Agricultural biotechnology and public attitudes in the European
Union. AgBioForum, 3(2-3), 87–96.
Gruissem, W. (2015). Genetically modified crops : the truth unveiled. Agriculture and
Food Security, 3–4. http://doi.org/10.2527/jas.
Hakan tekedere, Birce TABAN, Mustafa çalişkan, H. D. (2011). Analysis Of Training
Needs Of Health Services School Of Higher Vocational Education Students On
Genetically Modified Organisms. Journal of Turkish science education, 8(3), 157–
160.
Hallman, W. K., & Aquino, H. L. (2005). Consumers ’ Desire for GM Labels : Is the
Devil in the Details ? Articles in this Theme : Agricultural Economics, 20(4), 217–
262.
Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H. L., & Cuite, C. L. (2003). Public
perceptions of g enetically m odified f oods : A National Study of American
Knowledge and Opinion.
Han, J. H., & Harrison, W. R. (2007). Factors influencing urban consumers’ acceptance
of genetically modified foods. Review of Agricultural Economics, 29(4), 700–719.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00382.x
Henseleit, M., Kubitzki, S., & Herrmann, R. (2009). “GMO-free” labels – Enhancing
transparency or deceiving consumers? 49. Jahrestagung Der gewisola “Agrar-
Und Ernährungsmärkte Nach Dem Boom,” pp. 15. Retrieved from
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/53263/2/v26_53263.pdf
Hoban, T. J. (2001). American Consumers’ Awareness and Acceptance of
Biotechnology* Thomas J. Hoban. Most.
Hollingworth, R. M., & Meade, B. J. (2003). The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods
Produced through Biotechnology The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods
Produced through Biotechnology, 8, 2–8. http://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/71.1.2
Hosking, S. G., Liu, C. C., & Bayly, M. (2010). The visual search patterns and hazard
responses of experienced and inexperienced motorcycle riders. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 42(1), 196–202. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.07.023
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
54
Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Adelaja, A., Schilling, B., & Hallman, W. (2002).
Uncovering factors influencing public perceptions of food biotechnology. Food
Policy, (June), 1–31.
Huang, J., Qiu, H., Bai, J., & Pray, C. (2006). Awareness, acceptance of and
willingness to buy genetically modified foods in Urban China. Appetite, 46(2),
144–151. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.11.005
Isserman, A. M. (2001). from the SAGE Social Science Collections . All Rights
Reserved . SAGE Journals, 33(10), 928–940. http://doi.org/0803973233
Jae-Hwan, H. (1995). The Effects of Perceptions of Consumer Acceptance of
Genetically Modified Foods. Sunchon National University, (May).
James, C. (2010). brief 42 Global status of Commercialized biotech / GM Crops : 2010.
Crops, 42(44), 2009–2009. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479706343797
James, C., & Isa. (2009). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops : 2009
executive summarY, (41).
James, S., & Burton, M. (2003). Consumer preferences for GM food and other
attributes of the food system. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 47(4), 501–518. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2003.t01-1-
00225.x
Joffe, H. (2003). Risk: from perception to social representation. The British Journal of
Social Psychology / the British Psychological Society, 42(Pt 1), 55–73.
http://doi.org/10.1348/014466603763276126
K. Blaine, S. Kamaldeen, and D. P. (2002). Public Perceptions of Biotechnology:
Another Look. Journal of foods scienceournal of foods SCIENCE, 67(9), 3200–
3206. http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0196-35
Kaya, I. H., Poyrazoglu, E. S., Artik, N., & Konar, N. (2013). Academicans ’
Perceptions and Attitudes toward GM-Organisms and – Foods. International
Journal of Biological, Ecological and Environmental Sciences, 2(2), 2–6.
Key, S., Ma, J. K.-C., & Drake, P. M. (2008). Genetically modified plants and human
health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(6), 290–298.
http://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372
Kimenju, S. C., De Groote, H., Karugia, J., Mbogoh, S., & Poland, D. (2005).
Consumer awareness and attitudes toward GM foods in Kenya. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 4(10), 1066–1075.
Linacre, N. a, Gaskell, J., Rosegrant, M. W., Falck-zepeda, J., Quemada, H., Halsey,
M., & Birner, R. (2005). Analysis for Biotechnology Innovations Using Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA). Food Policy, (August).
http://doi.org/10.1.1.81.3865
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
55
M. Haque, Y. Arafat, S.K. Roy, Z.H. Khan, A.K.M. Majbah Uddin, S. P. (2014).
Nutritional Status and Hygiene Practices of Primary School Children. Journal of
Nutritional Health & Food Engineering, 1(2), 1–5.
http://doi.org/10.15406/jnhfe.2014.01.00007
Maghari, B. M., & Ardekani, A. M. (2011). Genetically modified foods and social
concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, 3(3), 109–117.
Malcolm, B., Sinnett, A., Malcolm, B., & Sinnett, A. (2015). Are We Risking too
much ? Are we @ Risking too much ? By. In Are w at risk too much ?
Markon, M.-P. L., & Lemyre, L. (2013). Public Reactions to Risk Messages
Communicating Different Sources of Uncertainty: An Experimental Test. Human
and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 19(4), 1102–1126.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.702015
Marris, C., & Marris, C. (2001). Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths.
Molecular Biology, 2(7), 545–548. http://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kve142
Matthen, M., & Stephens, C. (2007). Philosophy of Biology. Retrieved from
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Biology-Handbook-Science/dp/0444515437/
McComas, K. a., Besley, J. C., & Steinhardt, J. (2014). Factors influencing U.S.
consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease. Appetite, 78,
8–14. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006
Mizerski, R. W. (1982). An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence
of Unfavorable Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 301.
http://doi.org/10.1086/208925
Moerbeek, H., & Casimir, G. (2005). Gender differences in consumers’ acceptance of
genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(July),
308–318.
Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2003). Is there a market for genetically modified
foods in Europe? Contingent valuation of GM and non-GM breakfast cereals in
the United Kingdom. AgBioForum, 6(3), 128–133.
Morris, S. H., & Adley, C. C. (2000). Genetically modified food issues: Attitudes of
Irish university scientists. British Food Journal, 102(9), 669–691.
http://doi.org/10.1108/00070700010362040
Oladele, I., & Akinsorotan, A. (2007). The attitude towards genetically modified
organisms (gmo’s) and their effect on health and environment in southwestern.
Journal of Central European Agriculture, 8(1), 91–98.
Onyango, B., Jr, R. N., & Schilling, B. (2005). Role of product benefits and potential
risks in consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. AgBioForum, 7(4),
202–211.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
56
Paper, W., Hallman, W. K., Ph, D., Cuite, C. L., & Morin, X. K. (2013). Public
Perceptions of Labeling Genetically Modified Foods, (848), 1–42.
Peterson, M. J. (2010). Asilomar Conference on Laboratory Precautions When
Conducting Recombinant DNA Research – Case Summary. International
Dimensions of Ethics Education in Science and Engineering, (0734887).
Pierrier Ganiere, Wen S. Chern, D. H. (2004). Who are Proponents and Opponents of
Genetically Modified Foods in the United.
Ploeg, J. D. Van Der. (2000). Revitalizing Agriculture: Farming Economically as
Starting Ground for Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 497–511.
http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00163
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2004). Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food
and Crops, and the GM Nation? Public Debate on the Commercialisation of
Agricultural Biotechnology in Th. Retrieved from
http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/survey_2003.pdf
Prokop, P., Lešková, A., Kubiatko, M., & Diran, C. (2007). Slovakian Students’
Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Biotechnology. International Journal of
Science Education, 29(7), 895–907. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600969830
Pruitt, M. J. (2014). Consumer Perceptions and Knowledge of Genetically Modified
Organisms in Belgium: A Case Study of the Potato Event.
Pryme, I. F., & Lembcke, R. (2003). In vivo studies on possible health consequences of
genetically modified food and feed--with particular regard to ingredients
consisting of genetically modified plant materials. Nutrition and Health
(Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire), 17(1), 1–8.
http://doi.org/10.1177/026010600301700101
Pusztai, A. (2002). Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of
GM food? Nutrition and Health (Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire), 16(2), 73–84.
http://doi.org/10.1177/026010600201600202
Quaye, W., Yawson, I., Yawson, R. M., & Williams, I. E. (2009). Acceptance of
biotechnology and social-cultural implications in Ghana, 8(9), 1997–2003.
Rimal, A., Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2005). Labeling Genetically
Modified Food Products : Attitudes among the consumers in the United States and
United Kingdom. AAEA Annual Meeting in Providence, RI, (417), 1–22.
Ruttan, V. W. (1999). Biotechnology and agriculture: A skeptical perspective.
AgBioForum, 2(1), 54–60.
Sajeev, M. V, Gangadharappa, N. R., Directorate, Z. P., Sustainable, K., Management,
F., Project, B. C., & Bhavan, A. (2011). Genetically Modified Crops : A Pre-
Introductory Assessment of Farmer Readiness , Its Determinants and Extent of
Support in India. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2(1), 29–37.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
57
Scholderer, J. (2004). Consumer Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Foods in
Europe: Structure and Changeability. Retrieved from
http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2006/624/pdf/scholderer.pdf accessed June 16,
2010
Sheeran, J. (2008). The challenge of hunger. The Lancet, 371(9608), 180–181.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61870-4
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust,
and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–362.
http://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034
Siró, I., Kápolna, E., Kápolna, B., & Lugasi, A. (2008). Functional food. Product
development, marketing and consumer acceptance-A review. Appetite, 51(3), 456–
467. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.05.060
Sj, L., Moen, E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). of the psychometric Explaining risk. An
evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research (Vol. 2).
http://doi.org/10.1080/135753097348447
Sjöberg, L. (2008). Genetically Modified Food in The Eyes of the Public and Experts.
Risk Management, 10(3), 168–193. http://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2008.2
Smithson, M. (1999). Conflict Aversion: Preference for Ambiguity vs Conflict in
Sources and Evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
79(3), 179–198. http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2844
Sophia, K., & A.Powell, D. (2000). Public perceptions of biotechnology Sophia
Kamaldeen and Douglas A. Powel. Foodsatey Network Technical Report, (17), 1–
14.
Souza, D. K. De, Brown, C. A., Ahorlu, C. K., & Suzuki, T. (2013). Understanding the
requirements and factors necessary for the acceptance of genetically modified
mosquitoes as a potential malaria control tool in Ghana : a questionnaire survey.
AsPac J. Mol. Biol. Biotechnol, 21(3).
Suleyman, & Tuna, N. and Fi̇. (2011). An Overview of Biotechnology in Turkish
Secondary Schools : a Student ’ S Perspective on Health and Environmental
Issues. European Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 123–133.
Swiatkiewicz, S., Swiatkiewicz, M., Arczewska-Wlosek, A., & Jozefiak, D. (2014).
Genetically modified feeds and their effect on the metabolic parameters of food-
producing animals: A review of recent studies. Animal Feed Science and
Technology. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.09.009
Tenbült, P., De Vries, N. K., van Breukelen, G., Dreezens, E., & Martijn, C. (2008).
Acceptance of genetically modified foods: The relation between technology and
evaluation. Appetite, 51(1), 129–136. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.01.004
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
58
Tuffour, M., Sedegah, D. D., Nana, O., & Akyiaa, A. (2013). Is it Appreciation with
Caution ? Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods, 01(04), 190–198.
UNDP. (2001). Development Report 2001. Human Development.
Upsaliensis, A. U. (2004). Consumer Perception of Organic and Genetically Modified
Foods.
Viljoen, C. D., Dajee, B. K., & Botha, G. M. (2006). Detection of GMO in food
products in South Africa : Implications of GMO labelling. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 5(January), 73–82. Retrieved from
http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/11018178.pdf
Wieczorek, A. (2003). Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture — Benefits and Risks.
Biotechnology, 3(May), 1–6.
Zdziarski, I. M., Edwards, J. W., Carman, J. a., & Haynes, J. I. (2014). GM crops and
the rat digestive tract: A critical review. Environment International, 73, 423–433.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.08.018
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
59
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Consent Form
Title of Research: Perceptions of Genetically Modified Goods (GMFs) and Its Perceived
Risks and Benefits on Health among University Of Ghana (Ug) Students
Principal Investigator: Johnny Owusu
Address: P. O. Box LG 13, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences,
University of Ghana, Legon
Email: jondell100@yahoo.com
Mobile: 0243088882
Introduction:
This study aims at examining the perception of GMFs and its perceived risks and benefits
on health which is undertaken by Johnny Owusu, a Master of Science student at the
School of Public Health, University of Ghana. The study seeks to examine the awareness
level of GMOs/GMFs and perception regarding it. The study aims at providing the basis
for public health interventions, and in designing awareness and educational campaigns
about GMFs. This consent form contains all the information you will need to know about
the study to be undertaken before you decide to consent to take part in the above
mentioned study.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
60
Confidentiality and Anonymity
You are been invited to participate in this study and your participation is voluntary. You
will be given the opportunity to ask questions before you decide to take part in the study.
If you agree to take part in the study, you will be asked to provide personal information
and other related information about GMFs. All the information you provide will be kept
confidential and the data will be locked in a cabinet. The information will be accessible
only to the researcher and the research team. Your name and identity will not be needed
for the study. The information you provide will only be identified by a code number and
will be treated strictly confidential. Your name shall not appear or be mentioned in any
part of the report that will come out of this study.
Benefits and harm
Your involvement in this study will only be through an interview and you will not be
exposed to any form risks if you consent to take part. Your participation in the study or
your decision to withdraw from the study, will not affect you in any way whatsoever.
You will not be given any monetary or any kind of reward. All the information you will
give to the researcher will be used for this study.
For further questions and clarification about the study, you contact the principal
investigator on jondell100@yahoo.com or 0243088882 or the administrator of the Ghana
Health Service Ethical Review Committee, Mrs. Hannah Frimpong on 0243235225 or
0507041223.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
61
Appendix 2: Questionnaire
Study on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods and its Effect on Health
among University of Ghana Students (Ghana)
We are carrying out this survey to explore the perceptions people have about genetically
modified organisms/genetically modified foods. We would ask for your views on number
of different subjects relating to the genetically modified foods. Your input will be treated
strictly confidential but it will contribute to the Knowledge in understanding people’s
perceptions of genetically modified foods.
Demographics
1. What is your age (as of your last birthday)
__DD/mm/yyy
2. What is your gender?
1. Male ☐ 2. Female ☐
3. What is your marital status?
1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced 5. Other, Specify
4. What is your level?
1. Undergraduate (Specify the level)
______________________________________________________
2. Master’s degree ☐
3. PhD ☐
5. What programme are you studying?
6. What is your religion?
1. Christian
2. Muslim
3.Traditional
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
62
Other,
Specify______________________________________________________________________
__
7. Have you heard of GMOs/Genetically Modified Foods (GMFs)? Yes☐ No ☐
8. What is your level of interest in GM foods issues?
1. Very interested
2. Not interested
3. Somehow interested
9. What does a genetically modified food mean? (Please chose your best answer
1. Genetically modified foods are foods derived from organism whose genetic material (DNA)
has been modified by the introduction of a gene sequence from different organism
2. Genetically modified foods are foods derived from organism with modified genetic material
3. Genetically modified foods are foods derived from other organisms
10. Do you think GM foods are available in Ghana? (Please if yes answer the next
question)
1. Yes____ 2. No_____
11. Where can we found these GM foods? (Please list them)
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
-
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
12. What is your source of information on GM foods? (You may choose more than one
option)
1
Radio
2
Television
3
Newspapers
4
Books
5
Internet
6
Lecturer/Teacher
7
Workshop
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
63
8
Friend
Other, Specify______________________________________________
13. To what extent are these sources trustworthy?
1. Highly trusted
2. Lowly trusted
3. Not sure
14. What is your view on GM foods in terms of consumption? (Please select your best
answer only)
1. Harmful to health
2. Not harmful to health
3. Not sure
15. Which of these food production sources would you prefer? (Please select your best
answer)
1. The use of genetic modification technology
2. The use of organic fertilizer
3. The use of inorganic fertilizer
16. What is your reason for your chosen source of food production in question 15?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
17. What do you think about the impact GMOs on the environment?
1. Positive
2. Negative
3. Not sure
18. Please give reason(s) to your answer (Q17).
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
19. Name any known potential health risk associated with genetically modified foods.
____________________________________________________________________________
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
64
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
20. Name any known health benefit(s) associated with GM foods? (Please list them).
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
21. Do you know any known economic benefits associated with genetically modified
foods? (Please list them)
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Please rate the following questions (Question 22 to 25) as useful or risky and whether it
should be encourage or not.
22. The use of modern biotechnology in production of GM food. For example to make
them higher in protein, keep longer or change the taste.
1. Useful 2. Risky
23. Will you encourage it?
1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure
24. Taking genes from plant species and transferring them into crop plants to make them
more resistant to insect pest in order to avoid insect related disease which usually
culminate in low yield
1. Useful 2. Risky
25. Will you encourage it?
1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure
26. Will you accept GM Foods if they were cheaper?
1. Will accept
2. Will not accept
3. Not sure
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh