05 January 2004
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PERCEPTION ON RICE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH IN THE PHILIPPINES Alice Mataia, Grace Cataquiz, Ruth Francisco, Iva Sebastian and Maricar Bernardino PhilRice, Maligaya, Science City of Munoz, 3119 Nueva Ecija, Tel.No. 044-4560-649 and Mahabub Hossain, Lolita Garcia International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna, Tel.No.(02)845-0563 "mailto:[email protected]”;
This project was supported in part by Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Grant no. 2001-52100-11250 from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. Project Start and Completion – 01 April 2003 - 31 March 2004
Abstract This study assessed the level of public awareness or knowledge, and determined the attitude and perceptions of key persons - research institutions, mass media, religious groups, private companies, farmer groups, the academe, and public organizations and policymakers, legislators, and government officials on rice biotechnology research in the light of the recent development in the field-testing and commercialization of rice biotechnology and its products in the Philippines. Primary data were collected through mailed and group surveys among purposively selected respondents nationwide. Results indicated that although rice biotechnology is still new to them, a big percentage of the respondents had a high level of awareness, yet only close to half of them had correct understanding of the technology. They had exhibited ambivalent attitude toward rice biotechnology regardless of their level of knowledge of it, as affected by perceived risks and tangible benefits such as effect on food safety and environmental impacts. Other concerns are on multinational corporations control over local agriculture and on ethical problems in gene manipulation and transfer. Their attitudes also differed based on the purpose of rice biotechnology research application. They were conditional about the field-testing and commercialization of transgenic pest-resistant rice, while they supported the same for vitamin A and iron enriched rice. They see potential benefits of these rice products in meeting nutritional problems among Filipino children.
Key words: rice biotechnology, attitude, perception, and public awareness
I. Introduction The rice research community has been successful in helping provide adequate rice to most Filipinos. Nevertheless, with alarming poverty and malnutrition, unabated environmental degradation, and high population growth, the challenge of meeting the growing national demand for rice is still daunting.
Many scientists believe that while the use of modern biotechnology will not solve all the problems in food insecurity and poverty, it could provide a key component to the comprehensive solution to our country’s food security challenge. The use of genetically modified (GM) or transgenic crop varieties, particularly rice, has the potential of providing developing countries the much-needed boost in agricultural productivity, thereby contributing to the alleviation of severe food security problems (DRIFE, 2002). Biotechnology has been identified as an indispensable tool in developing suitable high-yielding rice varieties for adverse environments (eg. drought, flood-salinity-prone) in which traditional rice breeding is barely successful so far.
Furthermore, these transgenic varieties hold great promise in abating unsustainable field practices such as high rates of chemical use. With modern biotechnology tools, rice scientists have been inserting resistance genes that will result in varieties that require use of less chemicals. For example, with the insertion of a gene from wild rice (Xa21) into a rice variety (IR72), a transgenic rice resistant to bacterial leaf blight was developed. Similarly, some other genes transferred can make rice varieties resistant to major insect pests.
On the other hand, the development of foods with enhanced nutritional value is a strategic way of combating malnutrition problems, bringing enormous potential benefits to the poor in developing countries. In fact, a group of Swiss researchers, led by Dr. Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has developed a vitamin A-enriched rice, popularly called golden rice. This rice is estimated to meet 15 to 25 percent of the required dietary allowance for vitamin A. Similarly, IRRI has already incorporated iron into IR64, a popularly grown rice in the Philippines. At the national level, the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (RA 8435) supports the use of modern biotechnology.
2
However, several cause-oriented groups have been vehemently opposing the development and introduction of genetically modified commodities because of alleged environmental and health hazards. Notwithstanding researchers’ dismissal of these allegations through empirical demonstration and experimentation, many farmers and consumers are hooked with the fallacies associated with modern biotechnology. Opponents of biotechnology insist that benefits will only accrue to private companies that own the patents on genes/varieties. Moreover, they cite several ethical concerns regarding the crossing of genes of unrelated plants and animals.
Whether the commercialization of GM crops would benefit farmers and consumers in the country is highly dependent on public attitude and perception toward these commodities. As such, there is an emerging need to properly educate the public about biotechnology. As a precondition to a successful information campaign, key persons in research institutions, universities, mass media, religious groups, farmer groups, and other private and public organizations need to be properly aware about rice biotechnology. Otherwise, opposing groups would continue to gain ground.
II. Objectives This study conducted pulse surveys among key rice biotechnology stakeholders. Specifically, it aimed to:
Measure the level of public awareness on rice biotechnology research;
Determine the attitude and perception of key persons in research institutions, universities, mass media, religious groups, farmer groups, and other private and public organizations toward rice biotechnology research in the light of recent developments in field-testing and upcoming commercialization of rice biotechnology products in the Philippines; and
Draw up some policy recommendations regarding awareness on rice biotechnology and commercialization of rice biotechnology products based on the results of the survey.
3
III. Review of Literature Public opposition against food and agriculture biotechnology is not a unique experience in the Philippines. More often than not, wide public opposition accompanies introduction of new technologies, due mainly to uncertainty regarding long-term hazards and its potential of abuse. Indeed, consequent with the development and testing of genetically modified (GM) crops and its imminent introduction in the field is the worldwide emergence of issues about the safety, environmental and social impact, and ethics of biotechnology. Concerns on the long-term effects of biotechnology on human health and natural biodiversity have been causing some institutions to resist the adoption and use of crops developed through modern biotechnology.
Hence, with the issues arising with the introduction of GM food, there is an increasing need for quality, unbiased, and factual information that will increase public understanding about it, and will enable the public or the consumers to have informed choices and decisions about GM food (Verdume and Viaene). To be effective, communication should be targeted to specific segments of the society based on their needs and characteristics. As such, it is useful to assess the level of knowledge, attitude and perception toward rice biotechnology of primary knowledge brokers in the different segments of the society.
According to Aerni (1999), public acceptance, a precondition to consumer and producer’s acceptance, is the aggregate attitude of individuals toward an innovation. In turn, an individual’s attitude toward an innovation is dependent on his or her perceived risks and benefits of the new technology, socially communicated, and perceived trust in institutions. Furthermore, an individual’s general perception is formed by his or her sources of information such as mass media and social environment. Thus, public acceptance of new technologies is dependent on the perception of anticipated risks and benefits, trust in public and private institutions, socially conveyed cultural values, and accumulated individual experience. In particular, an individual’s perceptions on the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology are dependent on personally selected information received from other sources such as experiences of people working in the field, rumors, and statements issued by the industry, government, public interest groups, academe, and the media. Personal selection of information is, in turn, highly dependent on personal assessment of its reliability based on pre-existing notions on the subject (Aerni 2001a).
4
A study by Hossain, et al. (2002) revealed that public attitude toward food biotechnology is mainly driven by the following factors: self protection attitude, excitement about potential health and economic benefits; fear of health, safety and environmental risks associated with the technology; distrust of the technology; willingness to learn more about the technology, and confidence in government regulation. These factors affect acceptance of different groups of people at varying levels, depending on their socio-economic and value attributes.
A key barrier to the diffusion of GM foods is the vehement resistance of consumers (Heiman, 2000). This resistance differs based on the available alternatives. Consumer’s attitude toward GM foods, according to Heiman, et al. (2000), is significantly dependent on education and religion. Reports written by Shanahan (2003) from the results of a research program funded by the Institute of Biotechnology and Life Science Technologies reflected apparent ambivalence and reservations among public regarding the use of biotechnology within agriculture and food production. The results revealed that opponents of the use of biotechnology are more likely to be female, ideologically liberal, and younger, and are less informed on or aware of the issue of biotechnology. They also have the lowest level of achieved education and pay the least attention to science and biotechnology news on television or in the newspapers. Proponents of biotechnology, however, tend to be male and ideologically moderate. They are more likely to feel aware of and informed about the topic, and they pay higher levels of attention to news about science and biotechnology. The undecided are least aware and informed on the issue, although they have the highest overall average level of achieved education. According to Aerni (2001b) stakeholders of agricultural biotechnology have a favorable stance to biotechnology as a powerful tool to address problems in agriculture, nutrition and the environment. They are not so worried about its potential health risks but the potential impact of GM crops on the country’s rich biological diversity and the corporations’ control of biotechnology.
In 1997, a survey (Aerni, 1999a) was conducted by the Department of Agricultural Economics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich (ETH) and the University of the Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB) to examine the perception of risks and benefits of transgenic rice among the
5
main political actors in the Philippines. The survey revealed that NGOs and other public interest groups have a critical attitude toward transgenic rice, while scientists, are generally in favor. Despite the high expectations of a majority of politicians and government decision-makers toward genetic engineering for solving problems in the Philippine rice economy, their attitude with regard to risks and benefits of transgenic rice is ambivalent.
As in other developing countries, opposition of national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other public interest groups toward biotechnology are dominant in the Philippines (Aerni, 1999a). Since NGOs have become a very important partner in rural and urban development, this opposition might affect future development policies in the Philippines.
Notwithstanding the opposition, rice scientists in the Philippines are determined to develop and test transgenic rices for local suitability. With the approval of the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), has been testing the transgenic IR72 with Xa21. This transgenic rice is resistant to bacterial leaf blight. Similarly, some other genes transferred into rice can make it resistant to other pests. If farmers grow these resistant crops, use of pesticides will diminish. Also, PhilRice scientists are now crossing golden rice with local rice lines to produce special vitamin A-enriched rice.
IV. Methodology
Sampling Design and Respondents. Using the purposive sampling method, the sample respondents nationwide are key stakeholders from different sectors of the society selected based on their significant roles in national agricultural debates and in shaping public opinion. Most of the stakeholders were university presidents and professors, policymakers or heads of government institutions responsible for agriculture, environment, health, trade, and science and technology. Others were heads and representatives from research institutions, multinational companies, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), farmer organizations/groups, religious groups, media, legislators, public officials, and agriculturists. Group surveys were also conducted among students in selected colleges of chosen state and private universities. The stakeholders were
6
grouped into three categories: favorable, neutral, and critical groups. The favorable group comprises of key stakeholders from research institutions, agriculture students, agriculturists, policymakers and multinational companies; the neutral group - academe, non-agriculture and private students, religious groups, media, farmer groups, politicians and others; the critical group - local NGOs.
The Survey Questionnaire. The semi-structured 7-page survey questionnaire used divided into three major parts: the first part included personal information or socioeconomic characteristics of stakeholders; the second part asked information of stakeholders’ level of knowledge on rice research and green revolution, wherein questions were asked on a likert scale format of 1 to 4 (1 representing agree and 4 representing I do not know); the third part asked questions on knowledge, attitude and perception (KAP) toward rice biotechnology research. Stakeholders were asked to assess each other on influencing their attitudes and perceptions regarding social issues. They were also asked whether they associated certain organizations or personalities to effectively influencing their attitudes and perceptions. The questions in this section were arranged on binary choices, unscaled responses, open-ended questions, and on tabular or likert scale formats.
Data Collection. A mailed survey was conducted to solicit information. For NGOs and religious groups, the questionnaires were personally distributed to their heads and selected members and were collected after a week. It was personally administered among leaders or representatives of farmer organizations. A series of group surveys and biotechnology discussion fora were also conducted among groups of students in sample colleges of selected state and private universities to inform them on the process and potential of rice biotechnology research. It was assumed that if the public would be provided with information, their attitudes would change and, in turn their perceptions. Using the same questionnaire, follow up surveys were also conducted among the same groups of students two weeks after the initial surveys to assess improvement in their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. To determine if there was a spillover effect of the information from the discussion fora, sample students from the same universities who were not included during the initial surveys were also interviewed.
7
Data Analysis. Mainly descriptive statistics was used in interpreting the survey data, and correlation analysis was also used. Since most of the survey data are categorical, appropriate Chi-Square tests were performed to determine whether certain combinations of factors are independent or not. In cases where there are 2x2 comparisons, partial and marginal odds ratios were obtained to determine the overall magnitude and direction of association. Furthermore, to test for the effect of information on the level of knowledge of respondents, test of proportions was utilized. For those requiring the determination of the overall perception of respondents and those who answered conditionally on whether they would support the results of biotechnology, histograms were constructed to facilitate interpretation and comparison.
V. Results and Discussions
A total of 221 mailed survey questionnaires received from key stakeholders and 271 from group surveys of students were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests, to assess their level of knowledge and determine their attitudes and perceptions toward rice biotechnology research in the Philippines. Distribution of stakeholders is as follows: Table 1. Distribution of stakeholders. Key Stakeholders Favorable group: • Research institutions • Students (agriculture) • Agriculturists • Multinational companies • Policymakers Neutral • Academe (Heads/Prof) • Students (non-agriculture) • Students (private • Religious group • Media • Politicians • Farmer group • Others Critical • NGO All stakeholders
Number 217 (20) (140) (31) (9) (17) 240 (32) (73) (58) (10) (11) (8) (37) (11)
35 492
1. Characteristics of key stakeholders More than half of the respondents were male (Table 2). Average age was 37 years old with age group 17-23 years having mostly students, followed by the age group 24-50 years old. The age
8
group 51-85 years old had the lowest number (Table 3). Most of the respondents were elementary graduates, farmer groups and college level students. The favorable group had the most MS/MA graduates (60%), while, the neutral group had the most PhDs (72%), as the academe was included in this group. The critical group was mostly BS graduates (Table 4). The most dominant religion among respondents is Catholic (58%). Non-catholic group consisted 15% (Table 5).
2. Stakeholders’ level of knowledge of the green revolution (GR) or the introduction of modern high-yielding rice varieties.
To measure how their levels of knowledge of the GR would determine their perceptions attitudes, and level of knowledge of rice biotechnology, stakeholders were asked to assess using scale of 1 to 4 (1-agree, 2-neutral, 3-disagree, and 4- I do not know) their knowledge of the results of the GR. Only 34% of them were knowledgeable or had correct understanding of the GR. The favorable group posted the highest percentage (37%), because members of this group are mostly agriculturists, researchers, and policymakers. The neutral (32%) and critical groups (31%) did not significantly differ in their levels of knowledge of the GR (Table 6). Based on the Chi-square test, age was positively correlated with their level of knowledge of GR (x2=29.740, df=2, significant at P=0.05) which, suggested that as the respondent age increases, it becomes more likely that he/she is more knowledgeable about the GR. Male respondents are more likely to be knowledgeable of the GR than their female counterparts (x2=4.71, df=1, significant at P=0.05).
Positive and negative results of the GR. On average, 76% of the respondents agreed that increase in rice yields was one of the positive results, the others being shorter growing period and improved eating quality of rice. Negative results in the order of ranking included the following: •
Made small and marginal farmers highly indebted due to the high cost of fertilizer;
•
Soil fertility depleted;
•
Widened income inequality between rich and poor farmers;
•
Adverse income distribution effect for the rainfed ecosystem;
9
•
Biodiversity eroded due to decline in cultivation of traditional varieties;
•
Ground water irrigation of HYV contaminated drinking water; and
•
HYV reduced available drinking water
The critical group was most concerned on the effects of the GR on small and marginal farmers, making them highly indebted due to the high cost of fertilizer and irrigation. It was also concerned on the depletion of soil fertility and erosion of biodiversity. Increase in rice yields and shortening of the growing period of rice were both appreciated by the favorable and neutral groups.
3. Awareness and level of knowledge of rice biotechnology research
Awareness of rice biotechnology and GMO. Some 79% of the respondents were aware of rice biotechnology and 61% had heard of GMO. The critical group showed a high level of awareness and had correct meaning of GMO (89%), followed by the favorable group (75%). The least aware (44%) was the neutral group, particularly students in private and non-agriculture universities. Only 25% have heard of Frankenstein food; the critical group posted the highest level of awareness (51%), favorable (28%), and neutral (18%).
Source of information. Media was a very popular general source of information although government and research institutions, the academe, and co-workers were also well used. Books, magazines, newspapers, and other publications gave the most information on biotechnology. Other sources were TV/radio, public forums and discussions, journals and science and technology publications, classroom discussions and Internet. Students heard it from their professors through classroom discussions.
Level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. Respondents were classified into two categories, namely knowledgeable and not knowledgeable with the latter as those incorrectly defined biotechnology, and the former as those who provided at least one correct answer in the questionnaire. Only 44% were knowledgeable of rice biotechnology while level of awareness was 79%, implying that awareness does not always translate to correct understanding because the
10
technology is still new. Level of knowledge was highest for the critical group (54%), followed by the favorable (50%) and neutral groups (37%) (Table 7). Stakeholders with the highest level of awareness of GMO were also more knowledgeable of rice biotechnology. This was supported by the Chi-square test, where awareness of GMO and level of knowledge were positively associated (x2=24.595, df=1, p-value=0.000, significant at P=0.05). Those who have heard of GMO were twice more likely to be knowledgeable of rice biotechnology than those who haven’t heard of it, as demonstrated by the computed odds ratios (θAB=2.63).
The following are respondents’ mixed understandings of rice biotechnology. They associated it with: •
Genetic engineering (21%)
•
Transformation of an agronomically useful gene from rice in popularly grown rice varieties (19%)
•
Sequencing of genes in chromosomes of rice (13%)
•
Crossing of two rice varieties (13%)
•
Crossing of a traditional or improved variety with wild rice (10%)
•
Tissue culture (7%), and
•
Determining functions of genes (5%)
Determinants of the level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. Age was positively associated with knowledge of rice biotechnology (x2=16.857, df=2, p-value=0.000, significant at P=0.05). The computed odds ratios (θAB=2.41) implied that respondents who are 24-50 and 51-85 years old have almost the same chances of being knowledgeable, and are twice more likely knowledgeable of rice biotechnology than those who are only 17-23 years old. The education level of stakeholders was also positively associated with knowledge of biotechnology (x2=15.804, df=4, p-value=0.003, significant at 5% level of significance). Respondents with an MS degree were more likely knowledgeable than those with a bachelor’s degree (θAB =1.97), and those with bachelor’s degree were almost twice more likely knowledgeable than those with an elementary degree (θAB =1.48). Sex of respondents was independent from level of knowledge of rice biotechnology at 5% level of significance.
11
Majority (86%) of those knowledgeable of the GR have also heard of rice biotechnology. The Chi-square test (x2=8.321, df=1, p-value=0.004, significant at 5% level of significance) suggested that there is a positive association between knowledge of the GR and awareness of rice biotechnology. Respondents who are knowledgeable of the GR are twice more likely to have heard about rice biotechnology (θKNk = 2.08). Nevertheless, Table 8 shows that only close to half (46%) of the respondents who are knowledgeable of the GR are also knowledgeable of rice biotechnology. The favorable and critical groups posted the highest percentage at 54% and 55%, respectively. Based on the Chi-square test of independence (x2=.499, df=1, p-value=0.503), the result with a p-value of 0.053, which is greater than the specified 5% level of significance, demonstrated that knowledge of the GR and of rice biotechnology are independent. This means that those knowledgeable of the GR are not necessarily knowledgeable also of rice biotechnology.
Knowledge of rice biotechnology products.
To test further their understanding of rice
biotechnology research, respondents were asked about rice biotechnology products. Their understanding varied, with 35% of them citing golden rice, Bt rice (29%), and iron rice (9%). Some 27% of them, mostly students from non-agriculture and private universities did not know about the rice biotechnology products.
4. Stakeholders’ perceptions of rice biotechnology
Awareness of the benefits and risks of rice biotechnology. The favorable group showed a high level of awareness (89%) of the advantages or benefits of rice biotechnology, followed by the critical group (66%). However, almost half of the neutral group was not informed of these. The critical group (63%) was most aware of the anticipated risks of rice biotechnology followed by the favorable (56%) and neutral groups 33% (Table 9). Notably, the groups (favorable and critical) with the highest level of awareness of the perceived risks and benefits of rice biotechnology had also the same level of knowledge of it, while, the group (neutral) with low level of awareness showed also low level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. These results were further confirmed by the results of chi-square test, which indicated that the level of awareness of the perceived risks and benefits of rice biotechnology were positively associated with the level of
12
knowledge of it (x2=6.88, df=1, p-value=0.009, significant at 5% level of significance). The odds ratios (θ = 1.68) implied also that those knowledgeable of rice biotechnology are more likely aware of the perceived risks and benefits of it than those of who are not knowledgeable.
Perceived benefits. The benefits or advantages of rice biotechnology, as ranked, are increase in rice yield, production of good / improved rice variety, breeding of pest-and disease-resistant rice, shortened breeding period of rice, production of more nutritious rice, reduction of fertilizer and chemical use, and increased income of farmers because of improved in yield and reduced production costs. Other perceived benefits include improvement in grain quality, facilitated varietal improvement, and production of more affordable rice.
Perceived risks. Their perceived risks are adverse effect on human health (50%), environment hazard (14%), high costs of production (14%), and unknown effects of biotech (10%). Other perceived risks, as ranked, are the following: •
Reduced biodiversity;
•
Income inequality because only limited farmers would benefit;
•
Could cause damage to other organisms;
•
Soil fertility would decline;
•
Could develop super weeds and insects;
•
Mutation;
•
Laborious; and
•
Unnatural process of growing rice
5. Stakeholders’ Attitude Toward Rice Biotechnology
Previous studies revealed that public acceptance of new technologies is dependent on the perception of anticipated risks and benefits, trust in public and private institutions, socially conveyed cultural values, and accumulated individual experience. Furthermore, it is driven by fear of health, safety, and environmental risks associated with the technology. This section assessed whether respondents’ level of knowledge and perception of rice biotechnology would affect their attitudes.
13
Level of knowledge of rice biotechnology versus attitude. The Chi-square test result (x2=5.252, df=2, p-value=.072 at 5% level of significance) indicated that knowledge of rice biotechnology and attitude of respondents toward it are independent as demonstrated by the p-values, which are not significant. Thus, it is evident that majority of the respondents expressed conditional attitude on it regardless of their level of knowledge (Table 10).
Perceived risks and benefits of rice biotechnology versus attitude. Awareness of the risks and benefits of rice biotechnology are associated with the respondents’ attitude toward it as indicated by the chi-square test result
(x2=8.592, df=2, p-value=0.014, significant at 5% level of
significance). The level of association based on the computed odds ratios implied that those respondents who have not heard of the benefits and risks of rice biotechnology are respectively 1.48 times and 1.38 times more likely to support it either positively or conditionally than those who are aware of it. Table 10 shows that regardless of the respondent’s level of knowledge of biotechnology, they displayed conditional attitude about it. Furthermore, regardless of their level of awareness on the perceived risks and benefits of rice biotechnology, a large portion of them expressed conditional support (Table 11).
Knowledge of green revolution versus attitude.
As demonstrated by the Chi-square test
(x2=6.487, df=2, p-values=0.039, significant at 5% level of significance), knowledge of the GR and attitude on rice biotechnology research are associated. The computed odds ratios further explain that those who are knowledgeable of the GR are 1.47 times more likely to have a positive attitude than those not knowledgeable, presumably because these respondents are informed of the positive results of the GR and have experienced themselves its benefits. Foremost of which, is the dramatic increase in rice yield. However, those not knowledgeable are more inclined to have a conditional attitude.
Socioeconomic characteristics versus attitude. Age of respondents and attitude. These are dependent (x2=19.744, df=4, p-value=0.001 at 5% level of significance). Furthermore, the result explained the 17-23 and 24-50 years old groups of respondents almost have equal chances to support rice biotechnology research. The age group
14
51-85 years old is more likely to fully support rice biotechnology research than the age groups 17-23 and 24-50 years old, as explained by the computed odds ratios at 1.42.
Level of education. Table 12 shows that regardless of the respondents’ level of education, they are undecided of supporting rice biotechnology research. Thus, majority (76%) of them expressed conditional attitude. The result suggests further that respondents’ attitude and level of education are not associated as indicated by the Chi-square test results (x2=15.077, df=8, pvalue=0.058) at 5% level of significance. This finding does not support the assumption that individuals with a higher level of education have better understanding of the nature of new technology and its risks.
Religion. Respondents’ religions were grouped into Catholic, and non-Catholic consisting of Iglesia ni Cristo, Christian/Evangelical, Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Aglipayans, Mormons and Espiritistas. The Chi-square test (x2=7.126, df=2, p-value=0.008, significant at 5% level of significance) revealed that religion and attitude on rice biotechnology research are related. The odds ratio (θ=1.43), indicated that Catholic respondents are 1.43 times more likely to support rice biotechnology research.
5.1
Stakeholders’ attitude on the field-testing of rice biotechnology products.
5.1.1 Willingness to support rice biotechnology research in developing appropriate technologies for adverse ecological environments. Respectively, only 15% and 9% of the respondents expressed support and critical attitude. Majority (74%) expressed conditional support (Table 13). The Chi-square test, which p-value=0.072, greater than the 5% level of significance, indicated that knowledge of rice biotechnology and attitude toward rice biotechnology research are independent. Apparently, majority of the respondents expressed conditional attitude on it. The perceived risks associated with the technology could explain the conditional attitude of the majority of the respondents. As demonstrated by the chi-square test of independence, attitude and respondents’ anticipated risks of the technology are related.
15
Conditions for supporting rice biotechnology research. As can be seen from the chart (Fig.1), the leading condition for supporting rice biotechnology research is if environmental and health impacts of it and its products are properly assessed under bio-safety laws. Coming in second is if research is done only by public sector institutions; if coordinated with different institutions; if issue on health hazard is settled with complete assurance; if proven good after thorough investigation; and if it will help more farmers to increase their income. Figure 1. Conditions for supporting rice biotechnology 400
R
h
Category label
300
Fre qu en cy 200
100
Code Count
Pct
If environmental and health impacts of rice biotechnology and its products are properly assessed by bio-safety laws.
1
354
76%
If research is done only by public sector institutions
2
77
16%
Others
3
37
8%
0 1.00
2.00
3.00
Reasons for not willing to support rice biotechnology research for adverse environments. The following are the reasons or fears for which respondents were hesitant to support research: •
24% feared that farmers have to purchase rice seeds every year, making them dependent on private / multinational agricultural companies;
•
23% feared that multinational companies would charge high prices for rice seeds improved by biotechnology, making them unaffordable to farmers;
•
14% feared that biotechnology will destroy the environment;
•
13% feared that biotechnology research would create super insect pests, diseases and weeds that will ultimately destroy the source of food for future generations;
•
10% feared that genetically modified rice will cause allergies to humans;
•
8% cited that it is unethical to produce a new variety by transforming genes; and
•
3% cited that there is no need for additional production of rice.
16
5.1.2 Willingness to support the field-testing and experimentation of transgenic pest-resistant rice. Respondents were first asked how they perceived the total rate of pesticides use in rice cultivation. Some 47% perceived it as high; 27% very high; and 21% moderate. The critical group was most concerned on the heavy use of pesticides, as 60% perceived it as a very serious problem while close to 50% of both favorable and neutral groups perceived it only as a serious problem.
Based on these results, about 44% of the respondents expressed positive attitude on the fieldtesting of transgenic pest-resistant rice, while close to 50% expressed conditional support regardless of their level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. Only 9% were opposed to it. More than half (63%) of the critical group were against field-testing (Table 14), which explains that attitude is independent from level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. This group perceived that benefits from rice biotechnology would not be proportional to its anticipated risks. However, majority of the favorable and neutral groups expressed conditional support.
Conditions for supporting the field-testing and experimentation of transgenic pest-resistant rice. The top 5 conditions are the following: Figure 2. Conditions for supporting field-testing of transgenic pest-resistant rice 40
Frequency 30
20
10
0 1
5 2
Code
7 10
6
3 18
4
8 22
14 24
19 13
11 23
17 12
21 20
Category Label
1
- If it will not be hazardous to health and proven to be safe
2
- If it is environment-friendly
5
- If the field-testing is to be done in isolated areas
17
9 25
16 15
10
- If testing includes risks/safety aspects, and if adverse health and environmental impacts are monitored and studied continually
7
- If it complies with environmental laws and regulations
Other conditions: 18
- Appropriate information and approval by public should be sought to avoid publicity and negative attitude toward promotion of the technology
3
- If it is beneficial
4
- Properly controlled / monitored by highly competent individuals
6
- If it will cause no harm to other crops near the area or not contaminate the surrounding fields
22
- If it will increase rice productivity and will help small farmers
8
- If public research institutions will do it
24
- If it is really suitable in our country in any season and condition
14
- If it will not disrupt ecological balance / biodiversity
13
- If it will lessen the use of pesticides
19
- If product is assessed safe by the NBCP, and
23
- If there are enough budgets for such field-testing, and we are capable for such research
5.1.3 Willingness to support the field-testing of vitamin A-enriched rice. Respondents were first asked of the serious health problems caused by Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in the Philippines before they were asked of their attitude toward field-testing. Blindness was cited most (39%), followed by learning disorders (20%), stunted growth (19%), severe respiratory infections (11%), and 4% cited death. Owing to these perceived problems of VAD, most respondents expressed positive support (55%) of its field-testing in the Philippines to help solve VAD problems among children. About 33% declared conditional support while 12% posted a negative attitude (Table 15). This ambivalent attitude of respondents was again attributed to their anticipated future impacts of Vitamin A-enriched rice.
18
Majority of respondents in the favorable and neutral groups expressed solid support to the fieldtesting of Vitamin A-enriched rice, regardless of their knowledge in rice biotechnology research. More expressed conditional support, with the top conditions that would not impose any health risk. Other minor considerations are shown on the chart (Figure 3). Figure 3. Conditions for supporting the field-testing of Vitamin A-enriched rice.
Frequency
40
30
20
10
0 1
13 22
Code 22 13 16 2 14 3 6 11 4 25 17 7 20 24
2 16
3 14
11 6
25 4
17
8 20
24
7 5
10
12 15
21 9
18 23
Category Label - Inclusion of trials on environment and health impacts - If it ensures that the product can supplement the lack of vitamins among humans and it really contains Vitamin A - If the people near the area or all the people concerned were informed about the field-testing - If it will not be hazardous to environment - If the field-testing will be done under strict rules and regulations such as NBCP guidelines - It is useful and effective - Limited and controlled situation - If it would benefit / support even the small farmer - If properly controlled / supervised by experts - If test would be done thoroughly and in small areas - If it would surely increase production - Under supervision by proper authorities, following national rules and regulations - Adequate protection is provided so as to prevent accidental cross breeding with other rice varieties - If the organization involved in the field-testing would be liable for any harmful effects
Opponents’ reasons against the field-testing of Vitamin A-enriched rice. Among their top 5 reasons are:
19
•
Vitamin A needs can be met through additional production and supply of non-rice foods;
•
Genetically modified rice would impose other health problems;
•
Micro-nutrient needs could be met through supplementation of vitamin A tablets;
•
Philippines should not allocate scarce resources for such high-tech research; and
•
Micro-nutrient needs could be met through fortification of rice and wheat
Opposing respondents believed in meeting Vitamin-A deficiencies through other sources other than rice.
5.1.4 Willingness to support the field-testing of iron-enriched rice. Respondents perceived that anemia (39%), loss of appetite and or weight loss (18%), leukemia (18%), learning disorders (13%), and death (8%) are some of the serious health problems caused by iron deficiency. Thus, 64% of them particularly from the favorable and neutral groups, expressed positive attitude on the field-testing aagainst those with conditional (30%) and negative (6%) attitudes (Table 16). The Chi-square test again revealed that knowledge of rice biotechnology research and the decision to support field-testing of iron-enriched rice are independent. Respondents had positive attitude toward useful application or anticipated benefits of rice biotechnology regardless of their level of knowledge.
Conditions for supporting the field-testing of iron-enriched rice. The following are their top conditions: •
32% cited if public should be well informed of the risks and benefits of genetically modified rice;
•
30% cited successful or favorable field-testing results,
•
23% cited producers should label rice biotechnology products truthfully; and
•
13% cited genetically modified rice would be sold through national programs of the government
Reasons for not willing to support the field-testing of iron-enriched rice. Among their top reasons are: •
Might have negative effects on human health
•
Iron needs can be met through non-iron-enriched rice
20
•
Destruction of bio-diversity / environment
•
Not all Filipinos need iron intake
•
Rice might contain substances that can be harmful for humans
•
No clear policy on who to blame in case something happened with the environment and with consumers, and
•
5.2
Poor quality of rice
Stakeholder’s attitude toward commercialization of rice biotechnology products
Products referred to are transgenic pest-resistant rice, Vtamin A and iron-enriched rice. What do the respondents anticipate as future impacts of the products?
5.2.1 Willingness to buy or eat transgenic pest-resistant rice. Only 31% of the respondents expressed positive attitude, while majority (51%) showed conditional attitude. Some 18% was least supportive of it. The critical group showed the biggest percentage (60%) with negative attitude. The favorable and neutral groups expressed conditional support, regardless of their knowledgeable on rice biotechnology (Table 17).
Conditions for commercialization of transgenic pest-resistant rice. Their top conditions are: •
If it is really proven safe to eat and has no side effects;
•
If it passes the standards of DOH, BFAD and other health / food agencies; and
•
If it has been tested thoroughly by different bodies and proven safe.
Respondents who expressed conditional support to it were very much concerned about its safety for human consumption, above everything else.
Reasons for not willing to support the commercialization of transgenic pest-resistant rice. Among their top 3 reasons are: •
There is no 100% assurance that it is really a high-yielding and appropriate variety for Filipino farmers;
•
Hazardous and has adverse effects on human health; and
•
Adverse effects on our environment
21
5.2.2 Willingness to buy or eat Vitamin A-enriched rice. Majority (57%) of the respondents expressed positive support; 31% gave conditional support; and 9% were against it. Around 63% of the neutral group and 55% of the favorable group expressed positive attitude. On the other hand, only 20% of the critical group was willing to buy it. A larger portion of them (43%) cited negative attitude.
5.2.3
Willingness to buy or eat iron-enriched rice. Table 17 shows that 53% have expressed
conditional support for the commercialization of iron-enriched rice, while 40% are supportive of it. A minimal percentage (7%) is opposed to it. The critical group has the most critical attitude (43%), while the favorable and neutral groups had the most conditional and positive attitudes toward it, respectively. This result could be explained by the Chi-square test (x2=.630, df=2, P=0.05) that knowledge on rice biotechnology and whether the respondents would buy or eat iron-enriched rice are independent, as indicated by the large value of the asymptotic 2-sided significance value=0.072 of the3 likelihood ratio.
Conditions for supporting Vitamin A-enriched or Iron-enriched Rice. As can be seen in the chart (Figure 4), the top 4 are:
Code
3
Category Label
- Public is well informed about the risks and benefits of genetically modified rice
1
- Successful or favorable field-testing results
2
- Genetically modified rice will be sold through the national programs of the government
4
- Producers label rice biotechnology products carefully.
22
Fig. 4 Conditions for supporting Vitamin A or iron-enriched rice. 300
200
100
0 3
1
4
6. Effects of information (discussion forum) on respondents’ knowledge, perception, and attitude toward rice biotechnology.
It was assumed in this study that if the public would be provided with information, their knowledge would increase, their perceptions would change, and in turn their attitudes. Hence, various discussion fora were conducted among groups of students to inform them of the potentials and benefits of rice biotechnology. Using the test of proportion, the result revealed no significant evidence on the proportion of students who are knowledgeable of rice biotechnology prior and after the information was given (Table 18), although level of awareness increased (Table 19). This further confirms that awareness does not necessary translate to knowledge or correct understanding of a new technology. Regardless of the students’ level of knowledge of rice biotechnology, they exhibited a differing attitude toward it. However, there appeared a considerable positive change on the proportion of the number of students with that of before and after the information was provided to them (Table 20). Furthermore, students’ perceived benefits of rice biotechnology were almost the same with what they cited before and after the information was delivered, with a little change on their perceived risks. The first three risks (as shown below) mentioned earlier still remained but the “adverse effects on humans and environment” that then ranked highest has fallen in rank after the information was given.
23
Figure 5. Students’ perceived risks of rice biotechnology before and after information was given to them 16
16
14
14
F r e q u e n c y
12
F 10 re q 8 u e 6 n c 4 y
12 10 8 6 4 2
2
0
0 2.00
4.00 3.00
11.00 1.00
21.00
16.00
14.00
7.00 6.00
8.00
1.00
23.00
15.00
2 3 4 1
21.00 16.00
23.00 4.00
6.00
18.00
24.00 15.00
11.00
10.00
20.00
12.00
Perceived risks of rice biotechnology (informed)
Perceived risks (uninform ed)
Code
3.00 2.00
24.00
Category label -
Adverse effects on human health Hazardous to environment Unknown effects High cost of production / expensive
7. Stakeholders’ concerns on rice biotechnology research
Opponents of rice biotechnology research are asserting that the development and introduction of biotechnology products would cause environmental and human health hazards, and that benefits due from it would only accrue to private companies that own the patents on genes/varieties. Moreover, there are several concerns regarding the possible crossing of genes of unrelated plants and animals. Respondents were then asked how seriously they looked at these concerns. Adverse effects on food safety was cited most (42%) as very serious problem; adverse environmental impacts (37%); and multinational corporations’ control over agriculture (34%). The least cited (23%) were the ethical problems involved in gene identification and transfer. The critical group was most concerned on multinational corporations’ control over agriculture, and on adverse environmental impacts of rice biotechnology. Adverse effects on food safety concerned most both the favorable and neutral groups.
24
Figure 6. Stakeholders’ concerns regarding rice biotechnology research. 45 Very serious Serious Moderately serious Not serious
40 35
Frequency
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Adverse environmental impacts
Adverse effects on food safety
Multinational corporations' control over agriculture
Ethical problems involved in gene identification and transfer
8. Stakeholders’ willingness to pay (P/kg) for genetically modified rice.
Given the benefits from genetically modified rice, respondents were asked how much they were willing to pay (P/kg) for it as compared to ordinary rice available in the market. They would pay 1-10% more for it, although most of the critical group would not want a higher price for modified rice.
9. Information needs on biotechnology
Most of the respondents have heard of rice biotechnology research from print media, TV/radio, and the institutions they worked in but majority (96%) of them would still like to know more about it. They would want to receive information through magazines and newspapers (30%), TV/radio (19%), public forums (15%), internet (14%), and email (14%).
10. Influence of organizations or institutions on respondents’ attitude and perception regarding social issues
Certain organizations and institutions play an important role in shaping public opinion on social issues. Their perceptions of the anticipated future impacts of a specific technology may influence
25
the pattern of opinion of the public, or their constituents in particular. Respondents were asked which group or institution influences their perception and attitude. The critical group considered farmer groups, NGOs and other civil society groups very effective. The favorable and neutral groups looked to academic institutions, government agencies, research institutions, and media, even as all groups cited private companies and religious groups as moderately effective.
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
Rice biotechnology research is still new but a big majority of the respondents have heard of it, which they heard it mostly from media and the organizations or institutions they worked in. But then, only close to half of them were knowledgeable of the technology. They have mixed understandings of it. Some wrongly associated it with the crossing of two rice varieties, or of a traditional or improved variety with wild rice. Thus, it is inevitable that some respondents have misconceptions of its anticipated future impacts that need to be eliminated. Improved awareness among researchers and educators could facilitate the diffusion of biotechnology, allowing the realization of its full potentials. This study shows that the discussion fora conducted among groups of students increased their level of awareness and improved their attitudes and perceptions.
Amidst the potential contributions of rice biotechnology research to future food security, respondents expressed ambivalent attitudes toward it owing to its anticipated future adverse impacts, not on their level of knowledge, of the technology. Regardless of their level of knowledge, their attitudes differ depending on the purpose for which rice biotechnology research is applied. They had conditional attitude to biotechnology for developing technologies for adverse ecological environments, and for field-testing of transgenic pest-resistant rice. But they strongly support field-testing of vitamin A and iron-enriched rice, because of their applications in meeting nutritional problems among children. Similarly, they strongly support the commercialization of vitamin A-enriched rice but not transgenic pest-resistant and iron-enriched rice. The critical group, which consists mostly of local NGOs, strongly criticized rice biotechnology for field-testing and commercialization of its genetically modified product, despite their high level of awareness and knowledge of the biotechnology. This could be due to
26
their biased knowledge on the negative effects of the technology on human health and environment although most of them have no evidence yet. Most of the favorable and neutral groups expressed positive and conditional attitudes toward rice biotechnology.
The respondents’ primary concern is their perception that rice biotechnology would cause adverse effects on human health and the environment. Other concerns are multinational corporations’ control over agriculture and ethical problems in gene identification and transfer. Adverse effects on food safety concerned most the favorable and neutral groups. The concern of the critical group is political - multinational corporations’ control over agriculture, and environmental hazards. To drum up support for rice biotechnology research in the Philippines, a wide information campaign on its nature, processes, potentials, and perceived risks and benefits needs to be pursued. Policymakers should involve the public, especially farmers and consumer groups, in the formulation of policies concerning field-testing, biosafety concerns, commercialization, and others. This could be done by convening a multi-sectoral forum involving scientists, researchers, policymakers, educators, NGOs, farmer groups/leaders, and consumers.
The most serious concerns of the respondents are the human health risks and environmental effects associated with biotechnology. An assessment of its environmental and health impacts of rice biotechnology and its products under bio-safety laws, and allowing the public sector institutions to conduct rice biotechnology research are therefore important considerations for gaining public confidence and support. Support for public consultations and participation in relation to the applications of biotechnology, particularly with respect of ethical issues and food labeling, should also be initiated. Rice biotechnology research needs to be safe, undergo appropriate regulatory procedures, and adaptable to local conditions.
27
References Aerni, P., S.A.Phan-huy and P.Rieder (2000), “An Indication of Public Acceptance of Transgenic Rice in the Philippines”. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No.38, p18-21. ______ (2001), “Assessing Stakeholder Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries”. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No.47, p2-7. ______ (2001), “Public Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: A Comparison between Mexico and the Philippines. STI Research Report, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Bouis, Howarth E. “The Role of Biotechnology for Food Consumers in Developing Countries. [In: M. Qaim, A. Krattiger, and J. Von Braun (eds.), Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: Toward Optimizing the Benefits for the Poor]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.x-x. Graham Brookes. “Anti GM Crop Sentiment and Policies in the European Union: Some Economic Consequences”. Biotech Briefs, Vol.2 No.2 http://www.isaaa.org/kc/ Heiman, A., D.R Just and D. Zilberman (2000), “ The Role of Socioeconomic Factors and Lifestyles Variables in Attitude and the Demand for Genetically Modified Foods” Journal of Agribusiness, 18,3, p249-260. http://www.oxfarm.org.uk/policy/papers/gmfoods/gmfoods.htm http//www.entransfood.com/meetings/[email protected] In the Shadow of Frankenstein. The Public’s Spontaneous Understanding of Biotechnology http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/projekte/esera/book/135-ode.pdf Biotech Briefs Vol.2, No.2. No Author (1998), “Industry Consolidation, Public Attitude and the Future of Plant Biotechnology in Europe” Pierre-Benoit Joly and Stephane Lemarie INRA/SERD & Universite deGrenoble. AgBioForum, v.1, n.2 D. Boulter http://www.anth.org/ifgene/boulter.htm, Plant Biotechnology: Facts and Public Perception. Ruttan, V. (20021), “The Role of the Public Sector in Technology Development: Generalizations from General Purpose Technologies, Science, Technology and Innovation, Discussion Paper No.11. Cambridge, MA, USA: Center for International Development, Harvard University.
28
Vestal, TA and GE Briers (1999), “Effects of Biotech Foods: The First Harvest on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Journalists for Newspapers in Metropolitan Markets in the United States Regarding Food Biotechnology”. A Paper Presented to the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists. Agricultural Communication Section, Memphis, Tenn. Wansink, B. and J. Kim (2001), “The Marketing Battle Over Genetically Modified Foods: False Assumption About Consumer Behavior”, American Behavioral Scientist, 44:8 (April), 1405-17. .
29
Table 2. Distribution of sex of key stakeholders Stakeholders’ Groups
Sex of Respondents Male Female 20 15 147 93 106 111 273 219
Critical Neutral Favorable Total
Total 35 240 217 492
Table 3. Age of key stakeholders. Stakeholders’ Groups
17-23 yrs old 3 127 135 265
Critical Neutral Favorable Total
Age Group 24-50 yrs old 23 64 43 130
51-85 yrs old 7 40 32 79
Total 33 231 210 474
Table 4. Level of education of key stakeholders. Level of Education Stakeholders’ Groups Elem-coll Bachelor’s Master’s PhDs undergrad degree degree Critical 5 19 2 1 Neutral (2) (25) (5) (2) Favorable 129 37 10 30 (49) (48) (23) (60) Total 131 21 31 19 (49) (27) (72) (38) 265 77 43 50 (55) (16) (9) (10) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
No Response 8 (16) 28 (55) 15 (29) 51 (10)
Total 35 234 217 486
Table 5. Key stakeholders’ religion. Stakeholders’ Groups Favorable Neutral Critical Total
Religion NonCatholic 34 (16) 37 (15) 7 (20) 78 (15)
Catholic 118 145 20 283
(54) (60) (57) (58)
Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
30
No Response 65 (30) 58 (24) 8 (23) 131 (27)
Total 217 240 35 492
Table 6. Stakeholders’ level of knowledge of green revolution Stakeholders’ Groups Critical Neutral Favorable Total
Green Revolution Not knowledgeable Knowledgeable 24 (69) 11 (31) 164 (68) 76 (32) 137 (63) 80 (37) 325 (66) 167 (34)
Total 35 240 217 492
Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Table 7. Stakeholders’ level of knowledge of rice biotechnology Stakeholders’ Groups
Rice Biotechnology Not knowledgeable Knowledgeable Critical 16 19 (46) (54) Neutral 152 88 (63) (37) Favorable 108 109 (50) (50) Total 276 216 (56) (44) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Total 35 (100) 240 (100) 217 (100) 492 (100)
Table 8. Key stakeholders’ level of knowledge of green revolution and rice biotechnology research. Stakeholders’ Groups Favorable
GRevolution
Knowledgeable Not knowledgeable Total Neutral GRevolution Knowledgeable Not knowledgeable Total Critical GRevolution Knowledgeable Not knowledgeable Total All Grevolution Knowledgeable Stakeholders Not knowledgeable Total Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
31
Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledknowledgeable geable 37 43 71 66 108 109 48 28 104 60 152 88 5 6 11 13 16 19 90 77 186 139 276 216
Total 80 137 217 76 164 240 11 24 35 167 325 492
Table 9. Stakeholders’ awareness of the risks and benefits of rice biotechnology Stakeholders’
Awareness of the Benefits Groups Aware Not No Total Aware Response Critical 23 7 5 35 (66) (20) (14) (100) Neutral 117 117 6 240 (49) (49) (3) (100) Favorable 174 38 5 217 (80) (18) (2) (100) Total 314 162 16 492 (64) (33) (3) (100 Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Awareness of the Risks Aware Not No Aware Response 22 9 4 (63) (26) (11) 78 148 14 (33) (62) (6) 122 85 10 (56) (39) (5) 222 242 28 (45) (49) (6)
Total 35 (100) 240 (100) 217 (100) 492 (100)
Table 10. Knowledge of rice biotechnology and attitude Attitude toward Rice Biotech Research YES NO Yes, under certain conditions Knowledgeable 37 (14) 18 (7) 213 (79) Not knowledgeable 36 (17) 25 (12) 151 (71) Total 73 (15) 43 (9) 364 (76) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages Rice Biotechnology
Total
268 212 480
Table 11. Awareness of the benefits and risks of rice biotechnology and attitude.
Heard of the benefits of rice biotechnology Heard of the risks of rice biotechnology
NO YES Total NO YES Total
Support Rice Biotech Research Yes, under Yes No certain conditions 34 11 113 36 31 243 70 42 356 48 19 170 20 23 175 68 42 345
32
Total
158 310 468 237 218 455
Table 12. Respondents’ attitude to rice biotechnology research versus. level of education
Level of education of respondents
Attitude of supporting rice biotechnoloy Yes, under Yes No certain conditions
34 Elem-college undergraduate 15 Bachelor’s degree 8 MA/MS degree 6 PhD / DVM 9 No response 72 Total Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
(13) (21) (20) (12) (18) (16)
18 9 5 2 9 43
(7) (12) (13) (4) (18) ( 9)
211 49 27 21 32 360
(80) (67) (68) (84) (64) (76)
Total
263 73 40 49 50 475
Table 13. Stakeholders’ attitude on supporting rice biotechnology research Support of Rice Biotech Research Yes, under YES NO certain conditions 170 16 28 Favorable (78) (7) (13) 178 13 42 Neutral (74) (5) (18) 16 14 3 Critical (46) (40) (9) Total 364 43 73 (74) (9) (15) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages. Stakeholders’ Groups
No Response
Total
3 (1) 7 (3) 2 (6) 12 (2)
217 240 35 492
Table 14. Stakeholders’ attitude to the field-testing of transgenic pest-resistant rice Support to the Field-Testing of Transgenic Pest-Resistant Rice Yes, under certain Yes No conditions 43 5 56 53 6 47 96 11 103 69 6 74 40 6 41 109 12 115 3 10 2 2 10 5 5 20 7 210 43 225 (44) (9) (47)
Stakeholders’ Groups
Favorable
Rice Biotech
Neutral
Rice Biotech
Critical
Rice Biotech
Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total
All Stakeholders
33
Total
104 106 210 149 87 236 15 17 32 478 (100)
Table 15. Stakeholders’ attitude to the field-testing of Vitamin A-enriched rice
Stakeholders’ Groups
Favorable
Rice Biotech
Neutral
Rice Biotech
Critical
Rice Biotech
Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total
All Stakeholders
Support to the Field-Testing of Vit.A-enriched rice Yes, under Total Yes No certain conditions 59 15 33 107 58 13 36 107 117 28 69 214 93 6 51 150 52 7 27 86 145 13 78 236 2 9 4 15 3 7 7 17 5 16 11 32 267 57 158 482 (55) (12) (33) (100)
Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Table 16. Stakeholders’ attitude to the field-testing of iron-enriched rice
Stakeholders’ Groups
Favorable
Rice Biotech
Neutral
Rice Biotech
Critical
Rice Biotech
Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total
All Stakeholders Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
34
Support to the Field-Testing of Iron-enriched rice Yes, under Total Yes No certain conditions 71 2 34 107 65 5 36 106 136 7 70 213 103 6 40 149 58 4 25 87 161 10 65 236 3 8 4 15 5 6 5 16 8 14 9 31 305 31 144 480 (64) (6) (30) (100)
Table 17. Stakeholders’ attitude to the commercialization of rice biotechnology products.
Stakeholders’ Groups
Favorable Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Neutral Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Critical Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total All Stakeholders Not Knowledgeable
Buy/Eat Transgenic Pest-Resistant Rice Yes, under Yes No certain Total conditions
Yes
Buy/Eat Vitamin A-enriched Rice Yes, under No certain conditions
Total
Yes
Buy/Eat Ironenriched Rice Yes, under No certain conditions
Total
33 44 77 (37)
12 5 17 (8)
58 56 114 (55)
103 105 208 (100)
54 66 120 (57)
9 7 16 (8)
44 31 75 (35)
107 104 211 (100)
31 44 75 (36)
4 3 7 (3)
72 16 128 (61)
107 103 210 (100)
43 28 71 (30)
19 14 33 (14)
87 43 130 (56)
149 85 234 (100)
91 61 152 (65)
8 6 14 (6)
48 20 68 (29)
147 87 234 (100)
72 39 111 (47)
8 4 12 (5)
70 41 111 (47)
150 84 234 (100)
1 2 3 (10)
9 12 21 (68)
4 3 7 (32)
14 17 31 (100)
2 5 7 (22)
9 6 15 (47)
5 5 10 (31)
16 16 32 (100)
2 3 5 (17)
7 6 13 (43)
5 7 12 (40)
14 16 30 (100)
149 (56) 102 (49) 251 (53)
266 (100) 207 (100) 473 (100)
147 (54) 132 (64) 279 (58)
26 (10) 19 (9) 45 (9)
97 (36) 56 (27) 153 (33)
270 (100) 207 (100) 477 (100)
105 (39) 86 (42) 191 (40)
19 (7) 13 (6) 32 (7)
147 (54) 64 (32) 231 (49)
271 (100) 203 (100) 474 (100)
77 40 (29) (15) Knowledgeable 74 31 (36) (15) Total 151 71 (32) (15) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages
Table 18.
Proportion of students knowledgeable of rice biotechnology prior to and after the information was given.
Students Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total
Information Given Prior After 175 96 271
Total
121 60 181
296 156 452
Test statistics: Z=0.498542; Z∝ =0.05 = -1645
Table 19. Students’ level of awareness of rice biotechnology before and after information was given. Before Aware Not Aware Students (agriculture) 127 12 (91) (9) Students (non-agriculture) 48 25 (66) (34) Students (private) 27 31 (47) (53) 202 68 All Students (75) (25) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
No response 1 (1) 0 0 1 (0)
Aware 80 (100) 44 (77) 36 (82) 160 (88)
After Not Aware 0 12 (21) 8 (18) 20 (11)
No response 0 1 (2) 0 1 (1)
Table 20. Proportions of students supporting rice biotechnology research before and after information was given. Support on Rice Biotechnology Research Yes, under Yes No certain conditions Before Rice Biotechnology Not knowledgeable 6 (7) 4 (5) 70 (88) Knowledgeable 4 (9) 5 (12) 34 (79) Total 10 (8) 9 (7) 104 (85) After Rice Biotechnology Not knowledgeable 27 (32) 3 (4) 55 (65) 12 (31) 3 (8) Knowledgeable 24 (61) 39 (31) 6 (5) 79 (64) Total Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Total
80 43 123 85 39 124
This project was supported in part by Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Grant no. 2001-52100-11250 from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. Project Start and Completion – 01 April 2003 - 31 March 2004
Abstract This study assessed the level of public awareness or knowledge, and determined the attitude and perceptions of key persons - research institutions, mass media, religious groups, private companies, farmer groups, the academe, and public organizations and policymakers, legislators, and government officials on rice biotechnology research in the light of the recent development in the field-testing and commercialization of rice biotechnology and its products in the Philippines. Primary data were collected through mailed and group surveys among purposively selected respondents nationwide. Results indicated that although rice biotechnology is still new to them, a big percentage of the respondents had a high level of awareness, yet only close to half of them had correct understanding of the technology. They had exhibited ambivalent attitude toward rice biotechnology regardless of their level of knowledge of it, as affected by perceived risks and tangible benefits such as effect on food safety and environmental impacts. Other concerns are on multinational corporations control over local agriculture and on ethical problems in gene manipulation and transfer. Their attitudes also differed based on the purpose of rice biotechnology research application. They were conditional about the field-testing and commercialization of transgenic pest-resistant rice, while they supported the same for vitamin A and iron enriched rice. They see potential benefits of these rice products in meeting nutritional problems among Filipino children.
Key words: rice biotechnology, attitude, perception, and public awareness
I. Introduction The rice research community has been successful in helping provide adequate rice to most Filipinos. Nevertheless, with alarming poverty and malnutrition, unabated environmental degradation, and high population growth, the challenge of meeting the growing national demand for rice is still daunting.
Many scientists believe that while the use of modern biotechnology will not solve all the problems in food insecurity and poverty, it could provide a key component to the comprehensive solution to our country’s food security challenge. The use of genetically modified (GM) or transgenic crop varieties, particularly rice, has the potential of providing developing countries the much-needed boost in agricultural productivity, thereby contributing to the alleviation of severe food security problems (DRIFE, 2002). Biotechnology has been identified as an indispensable tool in developing suitable high-yielding rice varieties for adverse environments (eg. drought, flood-salinity-prone) in which traditional rice breeding is barely successful so far.
Furthermore, these transgenic varieties hold great promise in abating unsustainable field practices such as high rates of chemical use. With modern biotechnology tools, rice scientists have been inserting resistance genes that will result in varieties that require use of less chemicals. For example, with the insertion of a gene from wild rice (Xa21) into a rice variety (IR72), a transgenic rice resistant to bacterial leaf blight was developed. Similarly, some other genes transferred can make rice varieties resistant to major insect pests.
On the other hand, the development of foods with enhanced nutritional value is a strategic way of combating malnutrition problems, bringing enormous potential benefits to the poor in developing countries. In fact, a group of Swiss researchers, led by Dr. Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has developed a vitamin A-enriched rice, popularly called golden rice. This rice is estimated to meet 15 to 25 percent of the required dietary allowance for vitamin A. Similarly, IRRI has already incorporated iron into IR64, a popularly grown rice in the Philippines. At the national level, the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (RA 8435) supports the use of modern biotechnology.
2
However, several cause-oriented groups have been vehemently opposing the development and introduction of genetically modified commodities because of alleged environmental and health hazards. Notwithstanding researchers’ dismissal of these allegations through empirical demonstration and experimentation, many farmers and consumers are hooked with the fallacies associated with modern biotechnology. Opponents of biotechnology insist that benefits will only accrue to private companies that own the patents on genes/varieties. Moreover, they cite several ethical concerns regarding the crossing of genes of unrelated plants and animals.
Whether the commercialization of GM crops would benefit farmers and consumers in the country is highly dependent on public attitude and perception toward these commodities. As such, there is an emerging need to properly educate the public about biotechnology. As a precondition to a successful information campaign, key persons in research institutions, universities, mass media, religious groups, farmer groups, and other private and public organizations need to be properly aware about rice biotechnology. Otherwise, opposing groups would continue to gain ground.
II. Objectives This study conducted pulse surveys among key rice biotechnology stakeholders. Specifically, it aimed to:
Measure the level of public awareness on rice biotechnology research;
Determine the attitude and perception of key persons in research institutions, universities, mass media, religious groups, farmer groups, and other private and public organizations toward rice biotechnology research in the light of recent developments in field-testing and upcoming commercialization of rice biotechnology products in the Philippines; and
Draw up some policy recommendations regarding awareness on rice biotechnology and commercialization of rice biotechnology products based on the results of the survey.
3
III. Review of Literature Public opposition against food and agriculture biotechnology is not a unique experience in the Philippines. More often than not, wide public opposition accompanies introduction of new technologies, due mainly to uncertainty regarding long-term hazards and its potential of abuse. Indeed, consequent with the development and testing of genetically modified (GM) crops and its imminent introduction in the field is the worldwide emergence of issues about the safety, environmental and social impact, and ethics of biotechnology. Concerns on the long-term effects of biotechnology on human health and natural biodiversity have been causing some institutions to resist the adoption and use of crops developed through modern biotechnology.
Hence, with the issues arising with the introduction of GM food, there is an increasing need for quality, unbiased, and factual information that will increase public understanding about it, and will enable the public or the consumers to have informed choices and decisions about GM food (Verdume and Viaene). To be effective, communication should be targeted to specific segments of the society based on their needs and characteristics. As such, it is useful to assess the level of knowledge, attitude and perception toward rice biotechnology of primary knowledge brokers in the different segments of the society.
According to Aerni (1999), public acceptance, a precondition to consumer and producer’s acceptance, is the aggregate attitude of individuals toward an innovation. In turn, an individual’s attitude toward an innovation is dependent on his or her perceived risks and benefits of the new technology, socially communicated, and perceived trust in institutions. Furthermore, an individual’s general perception is formed by his or her sources of information such as mass media and social environment. Thus, public acceptance of new technologies is dependent on the perception of anticipated risks and benefits, trust in public and private institutions, socially conveyed cultural values, and accumulated individual experience. In particular, an individual’s perceptions on the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology are dependent on personally selected information received from other sources such as experiences of people working in the field, rumors, and statements issued by the industry, government, public interest groups, academe, and the media. Personal selection of information is, in turn, highly dependent on personal assessment of its reliability based on pre-existing notions on the subject (Aerni 2001a).
4
A study by Hossain, et al. (2002) revealed that public attitude toward food biotechnology is mainly driven by the following factors: self protection attitude, excitement about potential health and economic benefits; fear of health, safety and environmental risks associated with the technology; distrust of the technology; willingness to learn more about the technology, and confidence in government regulation. These factors affect acceptance of different groups of people at varying levels, depending on their socio-economic and value attributes.
A key barrier to the diffusion of GM foods is the vehement resistance of consumers (Heiman, 2000). This resistance differs based on the available alternatives. Consumer’s attitude toward GM foods, according to Heiman, et al. (2000), is significantly dependent on education and religion. Reports written by Shanahan (2003) from the results of a research program funded by the Institute of Biotechnology and Life Science Technologies reflected apparent ambivalence and reservations among public regarding the use of biotechnology within agriculture and food production. The results revealed that opponents of the use of biotechnology are more likely to be female, ideologically liberal, and younger, and are less informed on or aware of the issue of biotechnology. They also have the lowest level of achieved education and pay the least attention to science and biotechnology news on television or in the newspapers. Proponents of biotechnology, however, tend to be male and ideologically moderate. They are more likely to feel aware of and informed about the topic, and they pay higher levels of attention to news about science and biotechnology. The undecided are least aware and informed on the issue, although they have the highest overall average level of achieved education. According to Aerni (2001b) stakeholders of agricultural biotechnology have a favorable stance to biotechnology as a powerful tool to address problems in agriculture, nutrition and the environment. They are not so worried about its potential health risks but the potential impact of GM crops on the country’s rich biological diversity and the corporations’ control of biotechnology.
In 1997, a survey (Aerni, 1999a) was conducted by the Department of Agricultural Economics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich (ETH) and the University of the Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB) to examine the perception of risks and benefits of transgenic rice among the
5
main political actors in the Philippines. The survey revealed that NGOs and other public interest groups have a critical attitude toward transgenic rice, while scientists, are generally in favor. Despite the high expectations of a majority of politicians and government decision-makers toward genetic engineering for solving problems in the Philippine rice economy, their attitude with regard to risks and benefits of transgenic rice is ambivalent.
As in other developing countries, opposition of national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other public interest groups toward biotechnology are dominant in the Philippines (Aerni, 1999a). Since NGOs have become a very important partner in rural and urban development, this opposition might affect future development policies in the Philippines.
Notwithstanding the opposition, rice scientists in the Philippines are determined to develop and test transgenic rices for local suitability. With the approval of the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), has been testing the transgenic IR72 with Xa21. This transgenic rice is resistant to bacterial leaf blight. Similarly, some other genes transferred into rice can make it resistant to other pests. If farmers grow these resistant crops, use of pesticides will diminish. Also, PhilRice scientists are now crossing golden rice with local rice lines to produce special vitamin A-enriched rice.
IV. Methodology
Sampling Design and Respondents. Using the purposive sampling method, the sample respondents nationwide are key stakeholders from different sectors of the society selected based on their significant roles in national agricultural debates and in shaping public opinion. Most of the stakeholders were university presidents and professors, policymakers or heads of government institutions responsible for agriculture, environment, health, trade, and science and technology. Others were heads and representatives from research institutions, multinational companies, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), farmer organizations/groups, religious groups, media, legislators, public officials, and agriculturists. Group surveys were also conducted among students in selected colleges of chosen state and private universities. The stakeholders were
6
grouped into three categories: favorable, neutral, and critical groups. The favorable group comprises of key stakeholders from research institutions, agriculture students, agriculturists, policymakers and multinational companies; the neutral group - academe, non-agriculture and private students, religious groups, media, farmer groups, politicians and others; the critical group - local NGOs.
The Survey Questionnaire. The semi-structured 7-page survey questionnaire used divided into three major parts: the first part included personal information or socioeconomic characteristics of stakeholders; the second part asked information of stakeholders’ level of knowledge on rice research and green revolution, wherein questions were asked on a likert scale format of 1 to 4 (1 representing agree and 4 representing I do not know); the third part asked questions on knowledge, attitude and perception (KAP) toward rice biotechnology research. Stakeholders were asked to assess each other on influencing their attitudes and perceptions regarding social issues. They were also asked whether they associated certain organizations or personalities to effectively influencing their attitudes and perceptions. The questions in this section were arranged on binary choices, unscaled responses, open-ended questions, and on tabular or likert scale formats.
Data Collection. A mailed survey was conducted to solicit information. For NGOs and religious groups, the questionnaires were personally distributed to their heads and selected members and were collected after a week. It was personally administered among leaders or representatives of farmer organizations. A series of group surveys and biotechnology discussion fora were also conducted among groups of students in sample colleges of selected state and private universities to inform them on the process and potential of rice biotechnology research. It was assumed that if the public would be provided with information, their attitudes would change and, in turn their perceptions. Using the same questionnaire, follow up surveys were also conducted among the same groups of students two weeks after the initial surveys to assess improvement in their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. To determine if there was a spillover effect of the information from the discussion fora, sample students from the same universities who were not included during the initial surveys were also interviewed.
7
Data Analysis. Mainly descriptive statistics was used in interpreting the survey data, and correlation analysis was also used. Since most of the survey data are categorical, appropriate Chi-Square tests were performed to determine whether certain combinations of factors are independent or not. In cases where there are 2x2 comparisons, partial and marginal odds ratios were obtained to determine the overall magnitude and direction of association. Furthermore, to test for the effect of information on the level of knowledge of respondents, test of proportions was utilized. For those requiring the determination of the overall perception of respondents and those who answered conditionally on whether they would support the results of biotechnology, histograms were constructed to facilitate interpretation and comparison.
V. Results and Discussions
A total of 221 mailed survey questionnaires received from key stakeholders and 271 from group surveys of students were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests, to assess their level of knowledge and determine their attitudes and perceptions toward rice biotechnology research in the Philippines. Distribution of stakeholders is as follows: Table 1. Distribution of stakeholders. Key Stakeholders Favorable group: • Research institutions • Students (agriculture) • Agriculturists • Multinational companies • Policymakers Neutral • Academe (Heads/Prof) • Students (non-agriculture) • Students (private • Religious group • Media • Politicians • Farmer group • Others Critical • NGO All stakeholders
Number 217 (20) (140) (31) (9) (17) 240 (32) (73) (58) (10) (11) (8) (37) (11)
35 492
1. Characteristics of key stakeholders More than half of the respondents were male (Table 2). Average age was 37 years old with age group 17-23 years having mostly students, followed by the age group 24-50 years old. The age
8
group 51-85 years old had the lowest number (Table 3). Most of the respondents were elementary graduates, farmer groups and college level students. The favorable group had the most MS/MA graduates (60%), while, the neutral group had the most PhDs (72%), as the academe was included in this group. The critical group was mostly BS graduates (Table 4). The most dominant religion among respondents is Catholic (58%). Non-catholic group consisted 15% (Table 5).
2. Stakeholders’ level of knowledge of the green revolution (GR) or the introduction of modern high-yielding rice varieties.
To measure how their levels of knowledge of the GR would determine their perceptions attitudes, and level of knowledge of rice biotechnology, stakeholders were asked to assess using scale of 1 to 4 (1-agree, 2-neutral, 3-disagree, and 4- I do not know) their knowledge of the results of the GR. Only 34% of them were knowledgeable or had correct understanding of the GR. The favorable group posted the highest percentage (37%), because members of this group are mostly agriculturists, researchers, and policymakers. The neutral (32%) and critical groups (31%) did not significantly differ in their levels of knowledge of the GR (Table 6). Based on the Chi-square test, age was positively correlated with their level of knowledge of GR (x2=29.740, df=2, significant at P=0.05) which, suggested that as the respondent age increases, it becomes more likely that he/she is more knowledgeable about the GR. Male respondents are more likely to be knowledgeable of the GR than their female counterparts (x2=4.71, df=1, significant at P=0.05).
Positive and negative results of the GR. On average, 76% of the respondents agreed that increase in rice yields was one of the positive results, the others being shorter growing period and improved eating quality of rice. Negative results in the order of ranking included the following: •
Made small and marginal farmers highly indebted due to the high cost of fertilizer;
•
Soil fertility depleted;
•
Widened income inequality between rich and poor farmers;
•
Adverse income distribution effect for the rainfed ecosystem;
9
•
Biodiversity eroded due to decline in cultivation of traditional varieties;
•
Ground water irrigation of HYV contaminated drinking water; and
•
HYV reduced available drinking water
The critical group was most concerned on the effects of the GR on small and marginal farmers, making them highly indebted due to the high cost of fertilizer and irrigation. It was also concerned on the depletion of soil fertility and erosion of biodiversity. Increase in rice yields and shortening of the growing period of rice were both appreciated by the favorable and neutral groups.
3. Awareness and level of knowledge of rice biotechnology research
Awareness of rice biotechnology and GMO. Some 79% of the respondents were aware of rice biotechnology and 61% had heard of GMO. The critical group showed a high level of awareness and had correct meaning of GMO (89%), followed by the favorable group (75%). The least aware (44%) was the neutral group, particularly students in private and non-agriculture universities. Only 25% have heard of Frankenstein food; the critical group posted the highest level of awareness (51%), favorable (28%), and neutral (18%).
Source of information. Media was a very popular general source of information although government and research institutions, the academe, and co-workers were also well used. Books, magazines, newspapers, and other publications gave the most information on biotechnology. Other sources were TV/radio, public forums and discussions, journals and science and technology publications, classroom discussions and Internet. Students heard it from their professors through classroom discussions.
Level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. Respondents were classified into two categories, namely knowledgeable and not knowledgeable with the latter as those incorrectly defined biotechnology, and the former as those who provided at least one correct answer in the questionnaire. Only 44% were knowledgeable of rice biotechnology while level of awareness was 79%, implying that awareness does not always translate to correct understanding because the
10
technology is still new. Level of knowledge was highest for the critical group (54%), followed by the favorable (50%) and neutral groups (37%) (Table 7). Stakeholders with the highest level of awareness of GMO were also more knowledgeable of rice biotechnology. This was supported by the Chi-square test, where awareness of GMO and level of knowledge were positively associated (x2=24.595, df=1, p-value=0.000, significant at P=0.05). Those who have heard of GMO were twice more likely to be knowledgeable of rice biotechnology than those who haven’t heard of it, as demonstrated by the computed odds ratios (θAB=2.63).
The following are respondents’ mixed understandings of rice biotechnology. They associated it with: •
Genetic engineering (21%)
•
Transformation of an agronomically useful gene from rice in popularly grown rice varieties (19%)
•
Sequencing of genes in chromosomes of rice (13%)
•
Crossing of two rice varieties (13%)
•
Crossing of a traditional or improved variety with wild rice (10%)
•
Tissue culture (7%), and
•
Determining functions of genes (5%)
Determinants of the level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. Age was positively associated with knowledge of rice biotechnology (x2=16.857, df=2, p-value=0.000, significant at P=0.05). The computed odds ratios (θAB=2.41) implied that respondents who are 24-50 and 51-85 years old have almost the same chances of being knowledgeable, and are twice more likely knowledgeable of rice biotechnology than those who are only 17-23 years old. The education level of stakeholders was also positively associated with knowledge of biotechnology (x2=15.804, df=4, p-value=0.003, significant at 5% level of significance). Respondents with an MS degree were more likely knowledgeable than those with a bachelor’s degree (θAB =1.97), and those with bachelor’s degree were almost twice more likely knowledgeable than those with an elementary degree (θAB =1.48). Sex of respondents was independent from level of knowledge of rice biotechnology at 5% level of significance.
11
Majority (86%) of those knowledgeable of the GR have also heard of rice biotechnology. The Chi-square test (x2=8.321, df=1, p-value=0.004, significant at 5% level of significance) suggested that there is a positive association between knowledge of the GR and awareness of rice biotechnology. Respondents who are knowledgeable of the GR are twice more likely to have heard about rice biotechnology (θKNk = 2.08). Nevertheless, Table 8 shows that only close to half (46%) of the respondents who are knowledgeable of the GR are also knowledgeable of rice biotechnology. The favorable and critical groups posted the highest percentage at 54% and 55%, respectively. Based on the Chi-square test of independence (x2=.499, df=1, p-value=0.503), the result with a p-value of 0.053, which is greater than the specified 5% level of significance, demonstrated that knowledge of the GR and of rice biotechnology are independent. This means that those knowledgeable of the GR are not necessarily knowledgeable also of rice biotechnology.
Knowledge of rice biotechnology products.
To test further their understanding of rice
biotechnology research, respondents were asked about rice biotechnology products. Their understanding varied, with 35% of them citing golden rice, Bt rice (29%), and iron rice (9%). Some 27% of them, mostly students from non-agriculture and private universities did not know about the rice biotechnology products.
4. Stakeholders’ perceptions of rice biotechnology
Awareness of the benefits and risks of rice biotechnology. The favorable group showed a high level of awareness (89%) of the advantages or benefits of rice biotechnology, followed by the critical group (66%). However, almost half of the neutral group was not informed of these. The critical group (63%) was most aware of the anticipated risks of rice biotechnology followed by the favorable (56%) and neutral groups 33% (Table 9). Notably, the groups (favorable and critical) with the highest level of awareness of the perceived risks and benefits of rice biotechnology had also the same level of knowledge of it, while, the group (neutral) with low level of awareness showed also low level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. These results were further confirmed by the results of chi-square test, which indicated that the level of awareness of the perceived risks and benefits of rice biotechnology were positively associated with the level of
12
knowledge of it (x2=6.88, df=1, p-value=0.009, significant at 5% level of significance). The odds ratios (θ = 1.68) implied also that those knowledgeable of rice biotechnology are more likely aware of the perceived risks and benefits of it than those of who are not knowledgeable.
Perceived benefits. The benefits or advantages of rice biotechnology, as ranked, are increase in rice yield, production of good / improved rice variety, breeding of pest-and disease-resistant rice, shortened breeding period of rice, production of more nutritious rice, reduction of fertilizer and chemical use, and increased income of farmers because of improved in yield and reduced production costs. Other perceived benefits include improvement in grain quality, facilitated varietal improvement, and production of more affordable rice.
Perceived risks. Their perceived risks are adverse effect on human health (50%), environment hazard (14%), high costs of production (14%), and unknown effects of biotech (10%). Other perceived risks, as ranked, are the following: •
Reduced biodiversity;
•
Income inequality because only limited farmers would benefit;
•
Could cause damage to other organisms;
•
Soil fertility would decline;
•
Could develop super weeds and insects;
•
Mutation;
•
Laborious; and
•
Unnatural process of growing rice
5. Stakeholders’ Attitude Toward Rice Biotechnology
Previous studies revealed that public acceptance of new technologies is dependent on the perception of anticipated risks and benefits, trust in public and private institutions, socially conveyed cultural values, and accumulated individual experience. Furthermore, it is driven by fear of health, safety, and environmental risks associated with the technology. This section assessed whether respondents’ level of knowledge and perception of rice biotechnology would affect their attitudes.
13
Level of knowledge of rice biotechnology versus attitude. The Chi-square test result (x2=5.252, df=2, p-value=.072 at 5% level of significance) indicated that knowledge of rice biotechnology and attitude of respondents toward it are independent as demonstrated by the p-values, which are not significant. Thus, it is evident that majority of the respondents expressed conditional attitude on it regardless of their level of knowledge (Table 10).
Perceived risks and benefits of rice biotechnology versus attitude. Awareness of the risks and benefits of rice biotechnology are associated with the respondents’ attitude toward it as indicated by the chi-square test result
(x2=8.592, df=2, p-value=0.014, significant at 5% level of
significance). The level of association based on the computed odds ratios implied that those respondents who have not heard of the benefits and risks of rice biotechnology are respectively 1.48 times and 1.38 times more likely to support it either positively or conditionally than those who are aware of it. Table 10 shows that regardless of the respondent’s level of knowledge of biotechnology, they displayed conditional attitude about it. Furthermore, regardless of their level of awareness on the perceived risks and benefits of rice biotechnology, a large portion of them expressed conditional support (Table 11).
Knowledge of green revolution versus attitude.
As demonstrated by the Chi-square test
(x2=6.487, df=2, p-values=0.039, significant at 5% level of significance), knowledge of the GR and attitude on rice biotechnology research are associated. The computed odds ratios further explain that those who are knowledgeable of the GR are 1.47 times more likely to have a positive attitude than those not knowledgeable, presumably because these respondents are informed of the positive results of the GR and have experienced themselves its benefits. Foremost of which, is the dramatic increase in rice yield. However, those not knowledgeable are more inclined to have a conditional attitude.
Socioeconomic characteristics versus attitude. Age of respondents and attitude. These are dependent (x2=19.744, df=4, p-value=0.001 at 5% level of significance). Furthermore, the result explained the 17-23 and 24-50 years old groups of respondents almost have equal chances to support rice biotechnology research. The age group
14
51-85 years old is more likely to fully support rice biotechnology research than the age groups 17-23 and 24-50 years old, as explained by the computed odds ratios at 1.42.
Level of education. Table 12 shows that regardless of the respondents’ level of education, they are undecided of supporting rice biotechnology research. Thus, majority (76%) of them expressed conditional attitude. The result suggests further that respondents’ attitude and level of education are not associated as indicated by the Chi-square test results (x2=15.077, df=8, pvalue=0.058) at 5% level of significance. This finding does not support the assumption that individuals with a higher level of education have better understanding of the nature of new technology and its risks.
Religion. Respondents’ religions were grouped into Catholic, and non-Catholic consisting of Iglesia ni Cristo, Christian/Evangelical, Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Aglipayans, Mormons and Espiritistas. The Chi-square test (x2=7.126, df=2, p-value=0.008, significant at 5% level of significance) revealed that religion and attitude on rice biotechnology research are related. The odds ratio (θ=1.43), indicated that Catholic respondents are 1.43 times more likely to support rice biotechnology research.
5.1
Stakeholders’ attitude on the field-testing of rice biotechnology products.
5.1.1 Willingness to support rice biotechnology research in developing appropriate technologies for adverse ecological environments. Respectively, only 15% and 9% of the respondents expressed support and critical attitude. Majority (74%) expressed conditional support (Table 13). The Chi-square test, which p-value=0.072, greater than the 5% level of significance, indicated that knowledge of rice biotechnology and attitude toward rice biotechnology research are independent. Apparently, majority of the respondents expressed conditional attitude on it. The perceived risks associated with the technology could explain the conditional attitude of the majority of the respondents. As demonstrated by the chi-square test of independence, attitude and respondents’ anticipated risks of the technology are related.
15
Conditions for supporting rice biotechnology research. As can be seen from the chart (Fig.1), the leading condition for supporting rice biotechnology research is if environmental and health impacts of it and its products are properly assessed under bio-safety laws. Coming in second is if research is done only by public sector institutions; if coordinated with different institutions; if issue on health hazard is settled with complete assurance; if proven good after thorough investigation; and if it will help more farmers to increase their income. Figure 1. Conditions for supporting rice biotechnology 400
R
h
Category label
300
Fre qu en cy 200
100
Code Count
Pct
If environmental and health impacts of rice biotechnology and its products are properly assessed by bio-safety laws.
1
354
76%
If research is done only by public sector institutions
2
77
16%
Others
3
37
8%
0 1.00
2.00
3.00
Reasons for not willing to support rice biotechnology research for adverse environments. The following are the reasons or fears for which respondents were hesitant to support research: •
24% feared that farmers have to purchase rice seeds every year, making them dependent on private / multinational agricultural companies;
•
23% feared that multinational companies would charge high prices for rice seeds improved by biotechnology, making them unaffordable to farmers;
•
14% feared that biotechnology will destroy the environment;
•
13% feared that biotechnology research would create super insect pests, diseases and weeds that will ultimately destroy the source of food for future generations;
•
10% feared that genetically modified rice will cause allergies to humans;
•
8% cited that it is unethical to produce a new variety by transforming genes; and
•
3% cited that there is no need for additional production of rice.
16
5.1.2 Willingness to support the field-testing and experimentation of transgenic pest-resistant rice. Respondents were first asked how they perceived the total rate of pesticides use in rice cultivation. Some 47% perceived it as high; 27% very high; and 21% moderate. The critical group was most concerned on the heavy use of pesticides, as 60% perceived it as a very serious problem while close to 50% of both favorable and neutral groups perceived it only as a serious problem.
Based on these results, about 44% of the respondents expressed positive attitude on the fieldtesting of transgenic pest-resistant rice, while close to 50% expressed conditional support regardless of their level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. Only 9% were opposed to it. More than half (63%) of the critical group were against field-testing (Table 14), which explains that attitude is independent from level of knowledge of rice biotechnology. This group perceived that benefits from rice biotechnology would not be proportional to its anticipated risks. However, majority of the favorable and neutral groups expressed conditional support.
Conditions for supporting the field-testing and experimentation of transgenic pest-resistant rice. The top 5 conditions are the following: Figure 2. Conditions for supporting field-testing of transgenic pest-resistant rice 40
Frequency 30
20
10
0 1
5 2
Code
7 10
6
3 18
4
8 22
14 24
19 13
11 23
17 12
21 20
Category Label
1
- If it will not be hazardous to health and proven to be safe
2
- If it is environment-friendly
5
- If the field-testing is to be done in isolated areas
17
9 25
16 15
10
- If testing includes risks/safety aspects, and if adverse health and environmental impacts are monitored and studied continually
7
- If it complies with environmental laws and regulations
Other conditions: 18
- Appropriate information and approval by public should be sought to avoid publicity and negative attitude toward promotion of the technology
3
- If it is beneficial
4
- Properly controlled / monitored by highly competent individuals
6
- If it will cause no harm to other crops near the area or not contaminate the surrounding fields
22
- If it will increase rice productivity and will help small farmers
8
- If public research institutions will do it
24
- If it is really suitable in our country in any season and condition
14
- If it will not disrupt ecological balance / biodiversity
13
- If it will lessen the use of pesticides
19
- If product is assessed safe by the NBCP, and
23
- If there are enough budgets for such field-testing, and we are capable for such research
5.1.3 Willingness to support the field-testing of vitamin A-enriched rice. Respondents were first asked of the serious health problems caused by Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in the Philippines before they were asked of their attitude toward field-testing. Blindness was cited most (39%), followed by learning disorders (20%), stunted growth (19%), severe respiratory infections (11%), and 4% cited death. Owing to these perceived problems of VAD, most respondents expressed positive support (55%) of its field-testing in the Philippines to help solve VAD problems among children. About 33% declared conditional support while 12% posted a negative attitude (Table 15). This ambivalent attitude of respondents was again attributed to their anticipated future impacts of Vitamin A-enriched rice.
18
Majority of respondents in the favorable and neutral groups expressed solid support to the fieldtesting of Vitamin A-enriched rice, regardless of their knowledge in rice biotechnology research. More expressed conditional support, with the top conditions that would not impose any health risk. Other minor considerations are shown on the chart (Figure 3). Figure 3. Conditions for supporting the field-testing of Vitamin A-enriched rice.
Frequency
40
30
20
10
0 1
13 22
Code 22 13 16 2 14 3 6 11 4 25 17 7 20 24
2 16
3 14
11 6
25 4
17
8 20
24
7 5
10
12 15
21 9
18 23
Category Label - Inclusion of trials on environment and health impacts - If it ensures that the product can supplement the lack of vitamins among humans and it really contains Vitamin A - If the people near the area or all the people concerned were informed about the field-testing - If it will not be hazardous to environment - If the field-testing will be done under strict rules and regulations such as NBCP guidelines - It is useful and effective - Limited and controlled situation - If it would benefit / support even the small farmer - If properly controlled / supervised by experts - If test would be done thoroughly and in small areas - If it would surely increase production - Under supervision by proper authorities, following national rules and regulations - Adequate protection is provided so as to prevent accidental cross breeding with other rice varieties - If the organization involved in the field-testing would be liable for any harmful effects
Opponents’ reasons against the field-testing of Vitamin A-enriched rice. Among their top 5 reasons are:
19
•
Vitamin A needs can be met through additional production and supply of non-rice foods;
•
Genetically modified rice would impose other health problems;
•
Micro-nutrient needs could be met through supplementation of vitamin A tablets;
•
Philippines should not allocate scarce resources for such high-tech research; and
•
Micro-nutrient needs could be met through fortification of rice and wheat
Opposing respondents believed in meeting Vitamin-A deficiencies through other sources other than rice.
5.1.4 Willingness to support the field-testing of iron-enriched rice. Respondents perceived that anemia (39%), loss of appetite and or weight loss (18%), leukemia (18%), learning disorders (13%), and death (8%) are some of the serious health problems caused by iron deficiency. Thus, 64% of them particularly from the favorable and neutral groups, expressed positive attitude on the field-testing aagainst those with conditional (30%) and negative (6%) attitudes (Table 16). The Chi-square test again revealed that knowledge of rice biotechnology research and the decision to support field-testing of iron-enriched rice are independent. Respondents had positive attitude toward useful application or anticipated benefits of rice biotechnology regardless of their level of knowledge.
Conditions for supporting the field-testing of iron-enriched rice. The following are their top conditions: •
32% cited if public should be well informed of the risks and benefits of genetically modified rice;
•
30% cited successful or favorable field-testing results,
•
23% cited producers should label rice biotechnology products truthfully; and
•
13% cited genetically modified rice would be sold through national programs of the government
Reasons for not willing to support the field-testing of iron-enriched rice. Among their top reasons are: •
Might have negative effects on human health
•
Iron needs can be met through non-iron-enriched rice
20
•
Destruction of bio-diversity / environment
•
Not all Filipinos need iron intake
•
Rice might contain substances that can be harmful for humans
•
No clear policy on who to blame in case something happened with the environment and with consumers, and
•
5.2
Poor quality of rice
Stakeholder’s attitude toward commercialization of rice biotechnology products
Products referred to are transgenic pest-resistant rice, Vtamin A and iron-enriched rice. What do the respondents anticipate as future impacts of the products?
5.2.1 Willingness to buy or eat transgenic pest-resistant rice. Only 31% of the respondents expressed positive attitude, while majority (51%) showed conditional attitude. Some 18% was least supportive of it. The critical group showed the biggest percentage (60%) with negative attitude. The favorable and neutral groups expressed conditional support, regardless of their knowledgeable on rice biotechnology (Table 17).
Conditions for commercialization of transgenic pest-resistant rice. Their top conditions are: •
If it is really proven safe to eat and has no side effects;
•
If it passes the standards of DOH, BFAD and other health / food agencies; and
•
If it has been tested thoroughly by different bodies and proven safe.
Respondents who expressed conditional support to it were very much concerned about its safety for human consumption, above everything else.
Reasons for not willing to support the commercialization of transgenic pest-resistant rice. Among their top 3 reasons are: •
There is no 100% assurance that it is really a high-yielding and appropriate variety for Filipino farmers;
•
Hazardous and has adverse effects on human health; and
•
Adverse effects on our environment
21
5.2.2 Willingness to buy or eat Vitamin A-enriched rice. Majority (57%) of the respondents expressed positive support; 31% gave conditional support; and 9% were against it. Around 63% of the neutral group and 55% of the favorable group expressed positive attitude. On the other hand, only 20% of the critical group was willing to buy it. A larger portion of them (43%) cited negative attitude.
5.2.3
Willingness to buy or eat iron-enriched rice. Table 17 shows that 53% have expressed
conditional support for the commercialization of iron-enriched rice, while 40% are supportive of it. A minimal percentage (7%) is opposed to it. The critical group has the most critical attitude (43%), while the favorable and neutral groups had the most conditional and positive attitudes toward it, respectively. This result could be explained by the Chi-square test (x2=.630, df=2, P=0.05) that knowledge on rice biotechnology and whether the respondents would buy or eat iron-enriched rice are independent, as indicated by the large value of the asymptotic 2-sided significance value=0.072 of the3 likelihood ratio.
Conditions for supporting Vitamin A-enriched or Iron-enriched Rice. As can be seen in the chart (Figure 4), the top 4 are:
Code
3
Category Label
- Public is well informed about the risks and benefits of genetically modified rice
1
- Successful or favorable field-testing results
2
- Genetically modified rice will be sold through the national programs of the government
4
- Producers label rice biotechnology products carefully.
22
Fig. 4 Conditions for supporting Vitamin A or iron-enriched rice. 300
200
100
0 3
1
4
6. Effects of information (discussion forum) on respondents’ knowledge, perception, and attitude toward rice biotechnology.
It was assumed in this study that if the public would be provided with information, their knowledge would increase, their perceptions would change, and in turn their attitudes. Hence, various discussion fora were conducted among groups of students to inform them of the potentials and benefits of rice biotechnology. Using the test of proportion, the result revealed no significant evidence on the proportion of students who are knowledgeable of rice biotechnology prior and after the information was given (Table 18), although level of awareness increased (Table 19). This further confirms that awareness does not necessary translate to knowledge or correct understanding of a new technology. Regardless of the students’ level of knowledge of rice biotechnology, they exhibited a differing attitude toward it. However, there appeared a considerable positive change on the proportion of the number of students with that of before and after the information was provided to them (Table 20). Furthermore, students’ perceived benefits of rice biotechnology were almost the same with what they cited before and after the information was delivered, with a little change on their perceived risks. The first three risks (as shown below) mentioned earlier still remained but the “adverse effects on humans and environment” that then ranked highest has fallen in rank after the information was given.
23
Figure 5. Students’ perceived risks of rice biotechnology before and after information was given to them 16
16
14
14
F r e q u e n c y
12
F 10 re q 8 u e 6 n c 4 y
12 10 8 6 4 2
2
0
0 2.00
4.00 3.00
11.00 1.00
21.00
16.00
14.00
7.00 6.00
8.00
1.00
23.00
15.00
2 3 4 1
21.00 16.00
23.00 4.00
6.00
18.00
24.00 15.00
11.00
10.00
20.00
12.00
Perceived risks of rice biotechnology (informed)
Perceived risks (uninform ed)
Code
3.00 2.00
24.00
Category label -
Adverse effects on human health Hazardous to environment Unknown effects High cost of production / expensive
7. Stakeholders’ concerns on rice biotechnology research
Opponents of rice biotechnology research are asserting that the development and introduction of biotechnology products would cause environmental and human health hazards, and that benefits due from it would only accrue to private companies that own the patents on genes/varieties. Moreover, there are several concerns regarding the possible crossing of genes of unrelated plants and animals. Respondents were then asked how seriously they looked at these concerns. Adverse effects on food safety was cited most (42%) as very serious problem; adverse environmental impacts (37%); and multinational corporations’ control over agriculture (34%). The least cited (23%) were the ethical problems involved in gene identification and transfer. The critical group was most concerned on multinational corporations’ control over agriculture, and on adverse environmental impacts of rice biotechnology. Adverse effects on food safety concerned most both the favorable and neutral groups.
24
Figure 6. Stakeholders’ concerns regarding rice biotechnology research. 45 Very serious Serious Moderately serious Not serious
40 35
Frequency
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Adverse environmental impacts
Adverse effects on food safety
Multinational corporations' control over agriculture
Ethical problems involved in gene identification and transfer
8. Stakeholders’ willingness to pay (P/kg) for genetically modified rice.
Given the benefits from genetically modified rice, respondents were asked how much they were willing to pay (P/kg) for it as compared to ordinary rice available in the market. They would pay 1-10% more for it, although most of the critical group would not want a higher price for modified rice.
9. Information needs on biotechnology
Most of the respondents have heard of rice biotechnology research from print media, TV/radio, and the institutions they worked in but majority (96%) of them would still like to know more about it. They would want to receive information through magazines and newspapers (30%), TV/radio (19%), public forums (15%), internet (14%), and email (14%).
10. Influence of organizations or institutions on respondents’ attitude and perception regarding social issues
Certain organizations and institutions play an important role in shaping public opinion on social issues. Their perceptions of the anticipated future impacts of a specific technology may influence
25
the pattern of opinion of the public, or their constituents in particular. Respondents were asked which group or institution influences their perception and attitude. The critical group considered farmer groups, NGOs and other civil society groups very effective. The favorable and neutral groups looked to academic institutions, government agencies, research institutions, and media, even as all groups cited private companies and religious groups as moderately effective.
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
Rice biotechnology research is still new but a big majority of the respondents have heard of it, which they heard it mostly from media and the organizations or institutions they worked in. But then, only close to half of them were knowledgeable of the technology. They have mixed understandings of it. Some wrongly associated it with the crossing of two rice varieties, or of a traditional or improved variety with wild rice. Thus, it is inevitable that some respondents have misconceptions of its anticipated future impacts that need to be eliminated. Improved awareness among researchers and educators could facilitate the diffusion of biotechnology, allowing the realization of its full potentials. This study shows that the discussion fora conducted among groups of students increased their level of awareness and improved their attitudes and perceptions.
Amidst the potential contributions of rice biotechnology research to future food security, respondents expressed ambivalent attitudes toward it owing to its anticipated future adverse impacts, not on their level of knowledge, of the technology. Regardless of their level of knowledge, their attitudes differ depending on the purpose for which rice biotechnology research is applied. They had conditional attitude to biotechnology for developing technologies for adverse ecological environments, and for field-testing of transgenic pest-resistant rice. But they strongly support field-testing of vitamin A and iron-enriched rice, because of their applications in meeting nutritional problems among children. Similarly, they strongly support the commercialization of vitamin A-enriched rice but not transgenic pest-resistant and iron-enriched rice. The critical group, which consists mostly of local NGOs, strongly criticized rice biotechnology for field-testing and commercialization of its genetically modified product, despite their high level of awareness and knowledge of the biotechnology. This could be due to
26
their biased knowledge on the negative effects of the technology on human health and environment although most of them have no evidence yet. Most of the favorable and neutral groups expressed positive and conditional attitudes toward rice biotechnology.
The respondents’ primary concern is their perception that rice biotechnology would cause adverse effects on human health and the environment. Other concerns are multinational corporations’ control over agriculture and ethical problems in gene identification and transfer. Adverse effects on food safety concerned most the favorable and neutral groups. The concern of the critical group is political - multinational corporations’ control over agriculture, and environmental hazards. To drum up support for rice biotechnology research in the Philippines, a wide information campaign on its nature, processes, potentials, and perceived risks and benefits needs to be pursued. Policymakers should involve the public, especially farmers and consumer groups, in the formulation of policies concerning field-testing, biosafety concerns, commercialization, and others. This could be done by convening a multi-sectoral forum involving scientists, researchers, policymakers, educators, NGOs, farmer groups/leaders, and consumers.
The most serious concerns of the respondents are the human health risks and environmental effects associated with biotechnology. An assessment of its environmental and health impacts of rice biotechnology and its products under bio-safety laws, and allowing the public sector institutions to conduct rice biotechnology research are therefore important considerations for gaining public confidence and support. Support for public consultations and participation in relation to the applications of biotechnology, particularly with respect of ethical issues and food labeling, should also be initiated. Rice biotechnology research needs to be safe, undergo appropriate regulatory procedures, and adaptable to local conditions.
27
References Aerni, P., S.A.Phan-huy and P.Rieder (2000), “An Indication of Public Acceptance of Transgenic Rice in the Philippines”. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No.38, p18-21. ______ (2001), “Assessing Stakeholder Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries”. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No.47, p2-7. ______ (2001), “Public Attitudes toward Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: A Comparison between Mexico and the Philippines. STI Research Report, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Bouis, Howarth E. “The Role of Biotechnology for Food Consumers in Developing Countries. [In: M. Qaim, A. Krattiger, and J. Von Braun (eds.), Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: Toward Optimizing the Benefits for the Poor]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.x-x. Graham Brookes. “Anti GM Crop Sentiment and Policies in the European Union: Some Economic Consequences”. Biotech Briefs, Vol.2 No.2 http://www.isaaa.org/kc/ Heiman, A., D.R Just and D. Zilberman (2000), “ The Role of Socioeconomic Factors and Lifestyles Variables in Attitude and the Demand for Genetically Modified Foods” Journal of Agribusiness, 18,3, p249-260. http://www.oxfarm.org.uk/policy/papers/gmfoods/gmfoods.htm http//www.entransfood.com/meetings/[email protected] In the Shadow of Frankenstein. The Public’s Spontaneous Understanding of Biotechnology http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/projekte/esera/book/135-ode.pdf Biotech Briefs Vol.2, No.2. No Author (1998), “Industry Consolidation, Public Attitude and the Future of Plant Biotechnology in Europe” Pierre-Benoit Joly and Stephane Lemarie INRA/SERD & Universite deGrenoble. AgBioForum, v.1, n.2 D. Boulter http://www.anth.org/ifgene/boulter.htm, Plant Biotechnology: Facts and Public Perception. Ruttan, V. (20021), “The Role of the Public Sector in Technology Development: Generalizations from General Purpose Technologies, Science, Technology and Innovation, Discussion Paper No.11. Cambridge, MA, USA: Center for International Development, Harvard University.
28
Vestal, TA and GE Briers (1999), “Effects of Biotech Foods: The First Harvest on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Journalists for Newspapers in Metropolitan Markets in the United States Regarding Food Biotechnology”. A Paper Presented to the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists. Agricultural Communication Section, Memphis, Tenn. Wansink, B. and J. Kim (2001), “The Marketing Battle Over Genetically Modified Foods: False Assumption About Consumer Behavior”, American Behavioral Scientist, 44:8 (April), 1405-17. .
29
Table 2. Distribution of sex of key stakeholders Stakeholders’ Groups
Sex of Respondents Male Female 20 15 147 93 106 111 273 219
Critical Neutral Favorable Total
Total 35 240 217 492
Table 3. Age of key stakeholders. Stakeholders’ Groups
17-23 yrs old 3 127 135 265
Critical Neutral Favorable Total
Age Group 24-50 yrs old 23 64 43 130
51-85 yrs old 7 40 32 79
Total 33 231 210 474
Table 4. Level of education of key stakeholders. Level of Education Stakeholders’ Groups Elem-coll Bachelor’s Master’s PhDs undergrad degree degree Critical 5 19 2 1 Neutral (2) (25) (5) (2) Favorable 129 37 10 30 (49) (48) (23) (60) Total 131 21 31 19 (49) (27) (72) (38) 265 77 43 50 (55) (16) (9) (10) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
No Response 8 (16) 28 (55) 15 (29) 51 (10)
Total 35 234 217 486
Table 5. Key stakeholders’ religion. Stakeholders’ Groups Favorable Neutral Critical Total
Religion NonCatholic 34 (16) 37 (15) 7 (20) 78 (15)
Catholic 118 145 20 283
(54) (60) (57) (58)
Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
30
No Response 65 (30) 58 (24) 8 (23) 131 (27)
Total 217 240 35 492
Table 6. Stakeholders’ level of knowledge of green revolution Stakeholders’ Groups Critical Neutral Favorable Total
Green Revolution Not knowledgeable Knowledgeable 24 (69) 11 (31) 164 (68) 76 (32) 137 (63) 80 (37) 325 (66) 167 (34)
Total 35 240 217 492
Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Table 7. Stakeholders’ level of knowledge of rice biotechnology Stakeholders’ Groups
Rice Biotechnology Not knowledgeable Knowledgeable Critical 16 19 (46) (54) Neutral 152 88 (63) (37) Favorable 108 109 (50) (50) Total 276 216 (56) (44) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Total 35 (100) 240 (100) 217 (100) 492 (100)
Table 8. Key stakeholders’ level of knowledge of green revolution and rice biotechnology research. Stakeholders’ Groups Favorable
GRevolution
Knowledgeable Not knowledgeable Total Neutral GRevolution Knowledgeable Not knowledgeable Total Critical GRevolution Knowledgeable Not knowledgeable Total All Grevolution Knowledgeable Stakeholders Not knowledgeable Total Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
31
Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledknowledgeable geable 37 43 71 66 108 109 48 28 104 60 152 88 5 6 11 13 16 19 90 77 186 139 276 216
Total 80 137 217 76 164 240 11 24 35 167 325 492
Table 9. Stakeholders’ awareness of the risks and benefits of rice biotechnology Stakeholders’
Awareness of the Benefits Groups Aware Not No Total Aware Response Critical 23 7 5 35 (66) (20) (14) (100) Neutral 117 117 6 240 (49) (49) (3) (100) Favorable 174 38 5 217 (80) (18) (2) (100) Total 314 162 16 492 (64) (33) (3) (100 Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Awareness of the Risks Aware Not No Aware Response 22 9 4 (63) (26) (11) 78 148 14 (33) (62) (6) 122 85 10 (56) (39) (5) 222 242 28 (45) (49) (6)
Total 35 (100) 240 (100) 217 (100) 492 (100)
Table 10. Knowledge of rice biotechnology and attitude Attitude toward Rice Biotech Research YES NO Yes, under certain conditions Knowledgeable 37 (14) 18 (7) 213 (79) Not knowledgeable 36 (17) 25 (12) 151 (71) Total 73 (15) 43 (9) 364 (76) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages Rice Biotechnology
Total
268 212 480
Table 11. Awareness of the benefits and risks of rice biotechnology and attitude.
Heard of the benefits of rice biotechnology Heard of the risks of rice biotechnology
NO YES Total NO YES Total
Support Rice Biotech Research Yes, under Yes No certain conditions 34 11 113 36 31 243 70 42 356 48 19 170 20 23 175 68 42 345
32
Total
158 310 468 237 218 455
Table 12. Respondents’ attitude to rice biotechnology research versus. level of education
Level of education of respondents
Attitude of supporting rice biotechnoloy Yes, under Yes No certain conditions
34 Elem-college undergraduate 15 Bachelor’s degree 8 MA/MS degree 6 PhD / DVM 9 No response 72 Total Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
(13) (21) (20) (12) (18) (16)
18 9 5 2 9 43
(7) (12) (13) (4) (18) ( 9)
211 49 27 21 32 360
(80) (67) (68) (84) (64) (76)
Total
263 73 40 49 50 475
Table 13. Stakeholders’ attitude on supporting rice biotechnology research Support of Rice Biotech Research Yes, under YES NO certain conditions 170 16 28 Favorable (78) (7) (13) 178 13 42 Neutral (74) (5) (18) 16 14 3 Critical (46) (40) (9) Total 364 43 73 (74) (9) (15) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages. Stakeholders’ Groups
No Response
Total
3 (1) 7 (3) 2 (6) 12 (2)
217 240 35 492
Table 14. Stakeholders’ attitude to the field-testing of transgenic pest-resistant rice Support to the Field-Testing of Transgenic Pest-Resistant Rice Yes, under certain Yes No conditions 43 5 56 53 6 47 96 11 103 69 6 74 40 6 41 109 12 115 3 10 2 2 10 5 5 20 7 210 43 225 (44) (9) (47)
Stakeholders’ Groups
Favorable
Rice Biotech
Neutral
Rice Biotech
Critical
Rice Biotech
Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total
All Stakeholders
33
Total
104 106 210 149 87 236 15 17 32 478 (100)
Table 15. Stakeholders’ attitude to the field-testing of Vitamin A-enriched rice
Stakeholders’ Groups
Favorable
Rice Biotech
Neutral
Rice Biotech
Critical
Rice Biotech
Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total
All Stakeholders
Support to the Field-Testing of Vit.A-enriched rice Yes, under Total Yes No certain conditions 59 15 33 107 58 13 36 107 117 28 69 214 93 6 51 150 52 7 27 86 145 13 78 236 2 9 4 15 3 7 7 17 5 16 11 32 267 57 158 482 (55) (12) (33) (100)
Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Table 16. Stakeholders’ attitude to the field-testing of iron-enriched rice
Stakeholders’ Groups
Favorable
Rice Biotech
Neutral
Rice Biotech
Critical
Rice Biotech
Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total
All Stakeholders Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
34
Support to the Field-Testing of Iron-enriched rice Yes, under Total Yes No certain conditions 71 2 34 107 65 5 36 106 136 7 70 213 103 6 40 149 58 4 25 87 161 10 65 236 3 8 4 15 5 6 5 16 8 14 9 31 305 31 144 480 (64) (6) (30) (100)
Table 17. Stakeholders’ attitude to the commercialization of rice biotechnology products.
Stakeholders’ Groups
Favorable Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Neutral Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total Critical Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total All Stakeholders Not Knowledgeable
Buy/Eat Transgenic Pest-Resistant Rice Yes, under Yes No certain Total conditions
Yes
Buy/Eat Vitamin A-enriched Rice Yes, under No certain conditions
Total
Yes
Buy/Eat Ironenriched Rice Yes, under No certain conditions
Total
33 44 77 (37)
12 5 17 (8)
58 56 114 (55)
103 105 208 (100)
54 66 120 (57)
9 7 16 (8)
44 31 75 (35)
107 104 211 (100)
31 44 75 (36)
4 3 7 (3)
72 16 128 (61)
107 103 210 (100)
43 28 71 (30)
19 14 33 (14)
87 43 130 (56)
149 85 234 (100)
91 61 152 (65)
8 6 14 (6)
48 20 68 (29)
147 87 234 (100)
72 39 111 (47)
8 4 12 (5)
70 41 111 (47)
150 84 234 (100)
1 2 3 (10)
9 12 21 (68)
4 3 7 (32)
14 17 31 (100)
2 5 7 (22)
9 6 15 (47)
5 5 10 (31)
16 16 32 (100)
2 3 5 (17)
7 6 13 (43)
5 7 12 (40)
14 16 30 (100)
149 (56) 102 (49) 251 (53)
266 (100) 207 (100) 473 (100)
147 (54) 132 (64) 279 (58)
26 (10) 19 (9) 45 (9)
97 (36) 56 (27) 153 (33)
270 (100) 207 (100) 477 (100)
105 (39) 86 (42) 191 (40)
19 (7) 13 (6) 32 (7)
147 (54) 64 (32) 231 (49)
271 (100) 203 (100) 474 (100)
77 40 (29) (15) Knowledgeable 74 31 (36) (15) Total 151 71 (32) (15) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages
Table 18.
Proportion of students knowledgeable of rice biotechnology prior to and after the information was given.
Students Rice Biotechnology Not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Total
Information Given Prior After 175 96 271
Total
121 60 181
296 156 452
Test statistics: Z=0.498542; Z∝ =0.05 = -1645
Table 19. Students’ level of awareness of rice biotechnology before and after information was given. Before Aware Not Aware Students (agriculture) 127 12 (91) (9) Students (non-agriculture) 48 25 (66) (34) Students (private) 27 31 (47) (53) 202 68 All Students (75) (25) Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
No response 1 (1) 0 0 1 (0)
Aware 80 (100) 44 (77) 36 (82) 160 (88)
After Not Aware 0 12 (21) 8 (18) 20 (11)
No response 0 1 (2) 0 1 (1)
Table 20. Proportions of students supporting rice biotechnology research before and after information was given. Support on Rice Biotechnology Research Yes, under Yes No certain conditions Before Rice Biotechnology Not knowledgeable 6 (7) 4 (5) 70 (88) Knowledgeable 4 (9) 5 (12) 34 (79) Total 10 (8) 9 (7) 104 (85) After Rice Biotechnology Not knowledgeable 27 (32) 3 (4) 55 (65) 12 (31) 3 (8) Knowledgeable 24 (61) 39 (31) 6 (5) 79 (64) Total Note: Numbers in parentheses are percentages.
Total
80 43 123 85 39 124
