IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v43y2013icp159-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Status of development, regulation and adoption of GM agriculture in Africa: Views and positions of stakeholder groups

Author

Listed:
  • Adenle, Ademola A.
  • Morris, E. Jane
  • Parayil, Govindan

Abstract

The use of genetically modified (GM) crop technology in tackling food security problems and poverty reduction in Africa continues to generate debates over its benefits and safety. Only four countries, South Africa, Sudan, Burkina Faso and Egypt have commercialized GM crops in Africa but controversy surrounds current cultivation of GM maize in Egypt. Our study provides new perspectives on the status, development and regulation of GM crops through examining the views of 305 stakeholders in six African countries across four regions: South Africa, Kenya (East Africa), Egypt and Tunisia (North Africa), Ghana and Nigeria (West Africa), supplemented by interviews with relevant international organizations. The study revealed the challenges leading to the development of biosafety regulatory frameworks and the role of individual stakeholders in the facilitation of GM crops across African countries. This study also revealed that some countries may go through a Fiber–Feed–Food (F3) approach to adopt GM crops where Bt cotton will be adopted first followed by GM crops for livestock feed while undergoing all the necessary assessments before producing GM foods for human consumption. An overwhelming majority of stakeholders placed emphasis on risk analysis (risk assessment and management) in view of limited capacity, lack of scientific expertise and public concern, and encouraged a centralized approach to risk assessment similar to the European Union model of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Suggested Citation

  • Adenle, Ademola A. & Morris, E. Jane & Parayil, Govindan, 2013. "Status of development, regulation and adoption of GM agriculture in Africa: Views and positions of stakeholder groups," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 159-166.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:43:y:2013:i:c:p:159-166
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919213001346
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natasha Gilbert, 2009. "African science drops down G8 agenda," Nature, Nature, vol. 460(7251), pages 16-16, July.
    2. E. Jane Morris, 2011. "Modern Biotechnology—Potential Contribution and Challenges for Sustainable Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(6), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Vermeulen, Hester & Kirsten, Johann F. & Doyer, Ockert T. & Schonfeldt, H.C., 2005. "Attitudes and acceptance of South African urban consumers towards genetically modified white maize," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Bett, Charles & Ouma, James Okuro & Groote, Hugo De, 2010. "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 332-340, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chinedu, Obi & Sanou, Edouard & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Bartolini, Fabio & Gheysen, Godelieve & Speelman, Stijn, 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of transgenic biofortified sorghum for nutritional improvement in Burkina Faso: A latent class approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 132-140.
    2. Peter Scott & Jennifer Thomson & David Grzywacz & Serge Savary & Richard Strange & Jean B. Ristaino & Lise Korsten, 2016. "Genetic modification for disease resistance: a position paper," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(4), pages 865-870, August.
    3. Mawasha, Joseph Leshasha, 2020. "An assessment of South Africa’s non-genetically modified maize export potential," Research Theses 334758, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    4. Klara Fischer & Camilla Eriksson, 2016. "Social Science Studies on European and African Agriculture Compared: Bringing Together Different Strands of Academic Debate on GM Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Andrew Bowman, 2015. "Sovereignty, Risk and Biotechnology: Zambia's 2002 GM Controversy in Retrospect," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(6), pages 1369-1391, November.
    6. Fuli Tan & Jingjing Wang & Yixuan Guo & Taian Deng & Hans De Steur & Shenggen Fan, 2023. "Cost‐effectiveness of zinc interventions in China: A cohort‐based Markov model," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(S1), pages 1437-1457, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Klara Fischer & Camilla Eriksson, 2016. "Social Science Studies on European and African Agriculture Compared: Bringing Together Different Strands of Academic Debate on GM Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Obi-Egbedi, Ogheneruemu & Oluwatayo, Isaac B. & Ogungbite, Omowunmi, 2020. "Genetically Modified Crops’ Technology and its Awareness among Smallholder Farmers in Nigeria," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 20(35, Part ), December.
    3. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    4. Bett, Charles & Ouma, James Okuro & Groote, Hugo De, 2010. "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 332-340, August.
    5. Cardona, Tur J. & Speelman, S. & Sanou, E., 2018. "Farmers attitudes towards GMO crops: comparison of attitudes towards first and second generation crops in Burkina Faso," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276968, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Deng, H., 2018. "Impact of Government Policies on Private R&D Investment in Agricultural Biotechnology: Evidence from China," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277117, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Mirzobobo Yormirzoev & Ramona Teuber & Daniil Baranov, 2018. "Is Tajikistan a Potential Market for Genetically Modified Potatoes?," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 216-226.
    8. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    9. Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Gruère, Guillaume P. & Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), 2013. "Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara," IFPRI books, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), number 978-0-89629-795-1.
    10. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2008. "Is it Who You Ask or How You Ask? Findings of a Meta-Analysis on Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    12. Takeshima, Hiroyuki, 2011. "Distribution of welfare gains from GM cassava in Uganda across different population groups and market margins," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Wei Zhang & Xiaolin Xu & Chenghan Ming & Zijun Mao & Jing Shi & Yaqian Xiang, 2016. "Surviving in the dispute: A bibliometric analysis of global GMF-related research, 1995–2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 359-375, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:43:y:2013:i:c:p:159-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.