Abstract: So far few African countries have accepted genetically modified (GM) crops, despite their high potential for increasing food production. The opinion of African consumers is missing in the debate, especially of those in rural areas. Therefore, a survey was conducted among rural consumers in the major maize-growing areas of Kenya to gauge their acceptance of GM food. A third of respondents were aware of GM crops, and their main information source was radio. Most respondents would buy GM maize meal at the same price as conventional maize meal, and even pay a premium. Results show that the rural population of Kenya lacks access to relevant information to make informed decisions and contribute to the debate on the use of GM crops in Africa. A concerted, public policy effort is therefore needed, where the wider use of radio to reach the rural population should be explored. Provided with balanced information, rural consumers show a high degree of acceptance of GM maize. Keywords: Africa; biotechnology; consumer; contingent valuation; GM

1. Hugo De Groote1, Simon Kimenju 2,
Fredric Keter3, Obadiah Ngigi4 and Zachary Gitonga1
1International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)
2;Tegemeo Institute, Nairobi, Kenya 3 Kansas State University, USA; 4
Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Sept 18-19, June 2014
Published in 2016 in AgBioForum, 19(1): 54-65.
http://www.agbioforum.org/v19n1/v19n1a06-degroote.htm
But what do rural
consumers in Africa think
about GM food?

2. Introduction
● Genetically modified (GM) crops
 have a high potential for increasing food production.
 Few countries in Africa have so far accepted their use.
 The decision makers often share the aversion of
European consumers
 The major beneficiaries are farmers and rural consumers,
● But:
 Consumers’ opinion is rarely asked.
 Often, gatekeepers in the food industry decide
 Their opinion determines adoption diffusion of GM crops.
 They do not share the opinion of the decision makers

3. Background
● IRMA:
 1999: CIMMYT and the Kenya Agricultural Research
Institute (KARI), initiated project to develop insect
resistant maize varieties,
 using both conventional and biotech approaches,
 with genes and events in the public domain
 Named IRMA: Insect Resistant Maize for Africa
● Economic analysis
 Importance of stemborers and crop losses
 Farmer estimate (survey): 12.9%,
 Trials: 13.5% , $80 million (value of maize imports)
 Ex ante impact assessment
 Consumer acceptance
 First: urban consumers
 Followed by: rural consumers

4. Objectives
To determine the awareness,
knowledge, attitudes and concerns
of urban and rural consumers and
their gatekeepers in the food
industry
 To determine consumers willingess
to pay and industry’s willingness to
accept

5. Methodology
● Urban consumers
 Nairobi (2003): 604 urban consumers, at
points of sale
 Machakos (2006): 200, points of sale
● Rural:
 Eastern Kenya (2006), 200.
 Western Kenya (2007): 134
 Central Kenya (2006): 107
● Gatekeepers in 7 major urban centres
(2007-2008):
 supermarkets(40) and millers (32)
● Survey:
 Awareness
 Sources of information
 Perceptions
 Willingness to Pay

6. Awareness
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Biotechnology Genes GM crops in
general
GM sweet
potatoes
Bt maize Bt cotton
%ofrespondentsaware
Nairobi (2003)
Machakos (2009)
Moist Transitional (West, 2006)
Moist transitional (Central, 2009)
Dry transitional (Eastern, 2006)
Dry mid-altitudes (Eastern, 2006)
● Only half of consumers know about
biotechnology, less about genes
● Few rural consumers know about
GM crops

7. Sources of information
Source
Urban
consumers
Rural consumers Gatekeepers
Western
Machakos
(E)
Makueni
(E) Millers
Super
markets
Radio 63 37 74 0
Newspapers 56 13 28 24
School/college 35 59 68 20 50
Media 22 40 75
Friends/other people 22 0 68 24 25 0
Television 16
Research 53 0
Ministry of Agriculture 26 77 20 10
Provincial admin. 4 25
Agr shows 8 11
Brochures 50 0
Food industry 50 0
Internet 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 19
Number 227 126 60 28 32

8. Perceptions on benefits and risks
(% of respondents agreeing with statements)
Type of
percepti
on
Statement Consumers
Urban Rural
Benefits
GM technology increases productivity and offers solution to
world food problem 81 98
GM can reduce pesticides on food 79 85
GM can create foods with enhanced nutritional value 78 71
GM has potential of reducing pesticide residues in the
environment 73 85
Environ
mental risk
Insect resistant GM crops may cause death of untargeted insects 51
GM can lead to a loss of original plant varieties 50 38
GM threatens the environment 34 18
Health risk
People could suffer allergic reaction after consuming GM foods 40 14
Consuming GM foods can damage ones health 37 15
Consuming GM foods might lead to an increase in antibiotic-
resistant diseases 35 17

9. Ethical and Equity Concerns
(% of respondents agreeing with statements)
Type
Statement Consumers
Urban Rural
Ethical
GM food is artificial 50 16
GM is tampering with nature 48 4
GM technology makers are playing God 23 5
Equity
GM products are being forced on developing
countries by developed countries 36 8
GM products only benefit multinationals
making them 30
GM products don’t benefit small-scale farmers 22 7

10. Estimating WTP with contingent valuation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-50 -30 -20 -10 -5 0 5 10 20 30 50
Discount or premium level offered (as a %of price)
Respondentsacceptingtheoffer(%)
accept to buy, even at a premium (second bid)
only accept to buy at a discount (second bid)
accept to buy at the same price (first bid)
Kimenju and De Groote, 2008
(Agricultural Economics)

11. Willingness to pay
Urban Rural
Nairobi Machakos Moist transitional
Dry
transitional
Dry Mid-
altitutes
West Central (Machakos) (Makueni)
Willingness to pay at same price (%) 68 90 89 83 96 97
Constant (α) 4.17 4.16 3.69 4.18 4.53 5.65
(standard error) 0.22 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.60 1.19
Bid (ρ) 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.11
(standard error) 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.52 0.01 0.02
N 553 193 114 103 140 60
Mean WTP 58 79 79 131 63 54
Premium (%) 14 98 39 152 109 79
● 68% of Nairobi consumers, and
83-97% or urban consumers are
willing to buy GM maize at the
same price
● Most consumers, especially rural,
are willing to pay a premium

12. Factors affecting WTP by consumers
Variable Urban Rural
Class
Nairo
bi
Mach
akos Western Central Machakos Makueni
Constant 3.48 *** 4.55*** 4.11 ** 4.18 *** 5.94 *** 8.56 **
Bid 0.08 *** 0.05*** 0.06 *** 0.03 0.08 *** 0.12 ***
Percepti
ons
Awareness about GM crops 0.00 -0.25 -0.37 -1.53 0.83 * 2.04 *
Benefit perception index 0.01 2.95 * 1.10 *
Health risk perception index -0.84 *** -1.04 * -0.45
Environment risk Perception index -1.11
Ethical and equity concerns index -0.59 * -0.02
Trust in government 0.76 *** -0.27 -1.48
Demogr
aphic
Age 0.00 -4.74 -0.03 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02
Gender 0.04 -0.09 -0.07 -0.43 0.21 1.19
Education (years of schooling) -0.02 0.00 -0.65 -0.03 -0.09
Secondary 0.65 ***
Income 4 (> $ 667) 2.03 ***
Land size -0.01 -0.02 0.03 -0.15

13. Willingness to accept GM food
by the Kenyan food industry
No
On case-by-
case basis
No
On case-by-
case basis
Yes
Yes
Undecided
Undecided
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Milling Companies Supermarkets
Bett, Ouma and De Groote, 2010 (Food Policy)

14. Conclusion
● Awareness:
Limited knowledge on GM crops, especially among
rural consumers
Good knowledge among the industry
● Attitude is generally positive:
Benefits are acknowledged
No equity concerns
Industry is likely to follow the general trend
● WTP
 Urban and rural consumers are willing to pay a
premium for GM maize

15. Conclusions (cont.)
● There are some concerns:
Health
Environment
Some ethical (only urban)
● Information:
 Concerns can be addressed trhough information
 Information should be targeted, using the appropriate method,
such as:
 Brochures for the milling industry.
 Radio for poor and rural consumers
 Politicy makers: ??

16. Thank you The authors would like to thank
our:
● Donors: Syngenta Foundation
for Sustainable Agriculture, the
Rockefeller Foundation,
● Collaborators in the surveys:
James O. Ouma, Japheter
Wanyama, Kendo Danda
(KARI), and the enumerators,
● Respondents:
 consumers in Nairobi, West and
Eastern Kenya,
 Gatekeepers from the milling industry
and supermarkets

17. History of this presentation
● Oral presentation at the Symposium on GM food crops in Asia and
Africa, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, Sept 18-19, June
2014.
● Oral presentation at the 18th Conference of the International
Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR)
“Bioeconomy and Development”, Nairobi, 18-20 June 2014.
● Poster paper presented at the 29th Triennial Conference of the
International Conference of Agricultural Economists (ICAE) in Milan,
Italy, 9-14 August, 2015.
● Citation:
De Groote H., Simon C. Kimenju, F. Keter, O. Ngigi and Z. Gitonga. 2016. But what do
rural consumers in Africa think about GM food? AgBioForum, 19(1): 54-65.
http://www.agbioforum.org/v19n1/v19n1a06-degroote.htm .