Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
JCOM
Media as mediators in a science-based issue: politics,
foreign influence and implications on adoption of
Genetically Modified Organisms in food production in
Uganda
Ivan Nathanael Lukanda, Sara Namusoga-Kaale and George Claassen
The paper highlights the feedback loop between media, politics, foreign
influence and science in relation to the adoption of Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs) in food production in Uganda to demonstrate that
socio-cultural considerations are important in the GMO science and
technology debates. Based on the science-in-society model, the findings
from a content analysis of newspaper articles over a four-year period,
supplemented by interviews with scientists, activists from
non-governmental organisations, journalists, and Members of Parliament’s
Science and Technology Committee, the study found that food is a
politically thick issue. Both activists and scientists opportunistically use the
media, the platforms where the public access and contribute content, to
appeal to the politicians to legislate GMOs in their favour, arguing that the
activists or the scientists’ position is in the ‘public interest’. Often, such
coverage produces a paradox for the public by accelerating uncertainty
regarding the science and the products of genetic modification, especially
when politicians fail to decide for fear of the political implications of their
action as is the case in Uganda.
Abstract
Participation and science governance; Popularization of science and
technology; Public engagement with science and technology
Keywords
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203DOI
Submitted: 18th January 2022
Accepted: 22nd October 2022
Published: 16th January 2023
Introduction Public participation can significantly influence national policy on GMOs as was the
case in Mali [Pimbert & Barry, 2021].
GMOs first captured global attention in 1974 and were commercialised in the
U.S.A. in 1996 [International Service for the Acquisition of Agric-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), 2021]. Since then, GMOs have been media material. Media
Article Journal of Science Communication 22(01)(2023)A03 1
are the regular avenues for transmitting information, coordinating and dominating
debate on key issues in society. The centrality of the media is not only important in
politics but also science, as commercialisation of any laboratory product depends
on consumer approval [Lamphere & East, 2017; Malyska, Bolla & Twardowski,
2016], which the media can help to achieve. Studies show that the significance of
food allows the media to blend the science, governance, market, foreign influence
and personal interests for the public in form of news or related content in relation
to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The media play the role of informing,
reflecting, shaping public perceptions, and influencing policy developments about
new technologies such as GMOs [Du & Rachul, 2012; Ojanji & Otunge, 2017].
Through political economy analysis and issues culture, the structure of the media
market may define the social groups to be focused on by the media platforms in
negotiating the regulation [Lukanda, 2019, 2018; Vigani, 2017].
Perspectives from African journalists indicate that GMOs issues are under-reported
compared to politics, health, economics and art, and such coverage contributes to
the limited understanding of the subject [Ojanji & Otunge, 2017]. Media are in
position to influence public perceptions because GMOs are a fairly new technology
clouded in uncertainty as news value [Gustafson & Rice, 2019], thereby allowing
leaders to take shady political positions about the issue. While the sharing of such
information is crucial on health, for example Covid-19, as such issues affect
everyone, other sectors of science such as artificial intelligence, climate change and
GMOs have followed suit to command relative importance [Bauer, 2002;
Brüggemann & Engesser, 2017; Lukanda & Walulya, 2021]. In the context of GMOs,
the conflict between the US and the EU has influenced diversity in regulation of
biotechnology. The diversity has resulted from the “domestic politics through the
mobilization of domestic interests both within and outside the core state — to
shape GMO policy, without either side gaining control over the regulatory process”
[Falkner & Gupta, 2009, p. 128]. The democratization of GMO risk governance,
especially the ideas of demanding for accountability, media reportage, political
opportunity structures, have made the NGO community critical in galvanizing
alliances, nurturing and sustaining the debate in various countries [Jia, 2022; Seay
Fleming, 2022; Falkner & Gupta, 2009]. Besides, many political parties are likely to
engage in the GMO debate during peaks of political mobilization [Schwörer, Vidal
& Vallejo, 2022]. Therefore, scientific knowledge is as important as the ability to
lobby policymakers to influence the adoption of the science to save it from the
shelves. Thus, because of science democratisation, it has become increasingly
important for scientific processes and results from laboratories to be published in
the popular media, where many experts and laypeople access information.
The use of GMOs — including altering of genetic material of a plant, animal or
micro-organism through gene transfer to make a new organism or product — in
improving agricultural productivity requires domestic regulations on
biotechnology and biosafety [Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
2000]. Although most low- and middle-income countries are still struggling to
enact enabling laws, most developed countries already have regulations on the use
of GMOs. While GMOs are considered the future of food production, skepticism
regarding their potential risks to human health, environment, labelling of GMOs,
intellectual property rights of the innovations, and biodiversity, has persisted for
decades [Almeida & Massarani, 2018; E. A. Galata, 2017; Scheufele, 2014]. The
controversy involves multiple actors and interests. The key actors in the debate
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 2
have historically been biotechnologists (the makers of GMOs), GMO
multinationals, anti-GMO non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (activists), the
government, other scientists, farmers, journalists and the general public.
In the past, cases of protestors vandalizing government field trial sites in many
European countries have been reported [Kuntz, 2012]. Such scenarios could have
contributed to 17 European countries, including Austria, France, Italy, the
Netherlands and Poland, banning GMOs in 2015 [Lynas, 2015]. In 2018, a court in
California ruled that roundup, the key component in spraying GMOs was
cancerous [Bellon, 2018]. The rise of anti-science politicians can exacerbate
objection to GMOs [Dorius & Lawrence-Dill, 2018; Ehrenberg, 2018]. A comparison
of media coverage of GMOs in the U.S.A. and U.K. signposts persistence of the
controversy of the potential risks versus potential benefits [L. Galata, Karantininis
& Hess, 2014].
Besides, the debate on GMOs can be influenced by related issues in other countries
as published by the media. By allowing non-journalists to write or talk back to the
media, media outlets, such as newspapers, provide a fairly uniform platform
where elite and lay-man’s ideas about scientific issues become nationalised. For
instance, in the case of Sweden, the issues related to GMOs being identified tended
to be more local than global [Fischer, Wennström & Ågren, 2019].
That said, a recent study conducted in China indicates that individuals with weak
emotions about GMOs are more likely to trust scientists than to rely on their
abilities to process information published through digital platforms [Huang, 2020].
Moreover, the use of social media by expert organisations to correct
misrepresentation of GM technology has the potential to negatively influence such
technology among the public [Bode, Vraga & Tully, 2021]. In fact, a study has
demonstrated that the use of government agency and news media can help in
improving belief accuracy compared to social peers in public health
misinformation crises [van der Meer & Jin, 2020]. Therefore, the arguments, and
the respective actors, play a pivotal role in forming public opinion and “affect
ethical, practical, political, and scientific considerations of GMO” [Mintz, 2017,
p. 285]. Adoption of GMOs presents a conundrum in the global discourse as the
benefits associated with the biotechnology also face conflicts in regard to safety of
GMOs. GMOs may interfere with trade between African countries and the
European Union, where resistance to such products is still serious [Muzhinji &
Ntuli, 2021; Falkner & Gupta, 2009]. The current ability of Southern African
Development Community (SADC) countries to monitor GMOs is doubful [Mulwa,
Wafula, Karembu & Waithaka, 2013].
A study conducted in Kenya reveals that “more articles mention perceived benefits
than risks, but when risks are mentioned, new articles contain more references to
risks than to benefits [sic]” [DeRosier et al., 2015, p. 263]. Indeed, a transnational
network of donors, farmers, governments, NGOs and researchers influences how
newspapers in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda report about GMOs [Randall, 2014].
In Ghana, anti-GMO activists have demonstrated confidence in law courts and
have used the legal regime to block the GMO Bill [Issifu, 2018]. Diplomacy can also
be a key tool in endorsing or dismissing GMOs on the African continent [Sida,
2021].
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 3
Sources influence the way media report about GMOs [Omeje, 2019]. Both
traditional and social media have contributed toward moving the debate from a
polarized to a more favourable global debate about GMOs through the framing of
the perceived benefits [Evanega, Conrow, Adams & Lynas, 2022; Kahuthia, 2021].
The salience has resulted from multinational companies choosing to conceal the
losses the consumers, local farming communities and the environment make
through accepting untested technology by portraying GMOs as being in the public
interest in various countries [Aerni, 2018].
ISAAA [2021] indicates that 44 countries around the world have approved GMOs.
The ISAAA Statista [2019] report cites U.S.A., Brazil and Argentina as the leading
producers of GMOs. The report lists soybean, maize, cotton and canola as the most
planted crops. South Africa and Sudan are the only African countries growing
GMOs [Statista, 2019], although approval has been done in eight countries on the
continent [ISAAA, 2021]. By 2017, 12 African countries, including Kenya, Malawi
and Uganda, were researching the possibilities of growing GMOs [Cerier, 2017].
ISAAA [2016] cites the unsuitable regulatory systems that foreground uncertainty
as the major constraint to the adoption of GMOs. American companies Monsanto
(a branch of Bayer Germany) and DuPont, and the Swiss multinational Syngenta,
control 75% of the GM seed market, even though Switzerland itself has not
commercialised GMOs [GMWatch, 2009]. The newness of the technology, the
backtracking of some countries, and the failure by countries hosting some of the
GM companies to approve GMOs, seem to amplify the controversy.
The increasing coverage of science in the media has been attributed to the fact that
politicians allocate resources that fund scientific research, and therefore visibility in
the media is a measure of public accountability in democratic societies where
communication is key [Bucchi & Trench, 2016; Peters, 2013]. Thus, responding to
socio-political issues regarding food systems and societal values supersedes the
science versus the anti-science stigma and requires “political deliberation at many
levels of government and civil society” [Hicks, 2017, p. 69]. For this reason, the
North, with better capacity to test GMOs, is still contesting their adoption. For
Uganda, which exports agricultural products to its neighbours, the European
Union and other countries where GMOs are barred, the adoption of GMOs would
have serious implications in terms of market restrictions related to the supposed
threats GM technology poses to humanity and the environment.
Theoretical
framework
This paper adopts the science-in-society communication model as a theoretical
framework for understanding media as mediators between science, politics and the
media. The model aims to bridge the gap between professionals and laypeople
who do not have formal education in science, in this case in GMOs [Bauer, Allum
& Miller, 2007; Saltelli, Giampietro & Gomiero, 2017]. For this model to work, there
must be communication processes to link the three most important parties in the
science communication process — “scientists, the media and the general public”
[Friedman, Dunwoody & Rogers, 1999, p. xii]. The model looks at communication
as a mechanism for energising democratic discourse, a process punctuated by the
negotiation of meaning. The assumption is that individuals and communities
understand science in the context of how it relates to their cultural, socio-economic,
and political factors that influence their daily lives [Bucchi & Trench, 2016; Secko,
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 4
Amend & Friday, 2013]. It is believed that informedness can generate engagement
between scientists, government, civil society and the public on the challenging
science of GMOs. In other words, the model looks at science as “part of social and
institutional connections” [Einsiedel & Thorne, 1999, p. 50]. Thus, the model seeks
to democratise science by looking at the subject as knowledge generated from
within society. Science, then, is accompanied by the prejudices in the society from
which it is generated. The approach encourages people to make the right decisions
on uptake of science based on their knowledge of political processes and
institutions that support politics. This model considers the relationship between
science and the public as a construction of social processes, partly influenced by the
media [Bauer et al., 2007]. The current study uses the science-in-society model to
analyse how social processes, especially politics, influence the media coverage of
the science of GMFs in Uganda’s print media.
Strategies used by
politicians to
capture media
attention on GMOs
Public figures learn to respond to media logic or the conditions that determine
what is published. Indeed, some groups in society, especially politicians and
activists, have mastered those criteria and apply them even better than the scribes,
not only to endear them to the public, but also retain media attention.
The borrowing of journalistic criteria by politicians reflects an understanding that
issues are socially constructed through interaction between the press, other
institutional actors, events, and the public [Brants & van Praag, 2017; Lamphere &
East, 2017; Wenzelburger & König, 2017]. In the case of GMOs, media logic will
differ in the different media platforms, depending on type of ownership, the
politics of the day and the corresponding commercial logic and controversies [Reul,
Paulussen, Raeijmaekers, van der Steen & Maeseele, 2018]. Thus, the logic may
define what, when, how, and why the subject of GMOs is covered. By implication,
the logic of covering GMOs and science generally is shaped by years of
conceptualisation and practice, dotted by collaborations and conflicts between
scientists, journalists and political regimes. This interaction between and among
various stakeholders moves science from the realm of the laboratories to the
science-in-society, the major theory guiding this study.
The context of
GMFs in Uganda
Uganda has a fast-growing population that needs to be fed, yet GMFs are being
contested. Uganda’s situation is precarious considering that neighbouring Kenya
has approved the growing of GMOs [Akinbo et al., 2021]. Besides, South African
multinational businesses, Game and Shoprite, were already selling unlabelled
agricultural products through their Ugandan outlets. There is no guarantee that
such agricultural products are GMO free.
Yet Uganda is still interested in adopting GMOs to boost its key sector in the face of
climate change and its related effects such as extreme weather conditions and
fluctuations in food production. At least 72% of the country’s working population
is involved in the agricultural sector [World Bank, 2021]. Despite the significant
contribution to the GDP, the agricultural sector has not received the attention it
requires, leaving many parts of the country occasionally in dire need of food.
A Food and Agricultural Organisation [FAO, 2017] annual state of food insecurity
report indicates that Uganda is at high risk of hunger and undernourishment.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 5
Several reports have highlighted the problem of hunger and its consequences of
malnutrition, along with the inability to think and work, that have resulted in
mortality over the decades [FAO, 2017; Mugisha, 2000]. The drive toward the
adoption of GMOs seems to be a response to such reports. In 2016–2017, Uganda
experienced a fatal famine causing the postponement of local council elections to
enable the government to use the money to provide food to the most affected areas
of Isingiro, Teso and Karamoja [Nakato, 2017]. In 2018, however, the market was
flooded with maize grain and farmers were forced to sell their produce at Uganda
Shillings 200 (about US$0.05). The appeal for better prices from the farmers’
federations generated a response from government which ring-fenced Shillings 100
billion (about US$ 27 million) to enable businessmen to borrow the money from the
commercial banks to buy the maize grain from the farmers at Shillings 500 (about
US$0.2) [Monitor, 2018]. It seems that the difference between food scarcity and
abundance is management of produce, rather than adoption of GM technology.
Nonetheless, Uganda has been conducting research in maize, bananas, rice, and
cassava among other crops at its research institutes at Kawanda and Namulonge.
The research is guided by the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy 2008
[Republic of Uganda, 2008].
This paper, therefore, seeks to establish the feedback loop between media, politics,
foreign influence and science in relation to adoption of genetically modified
organisms/food (GMO/F) in Uganda. The subsequent sections will demonstrate
the relationship between politics and access to food, why scientists are
collaborating with politicians and journalists, the implications of international
influence and the politicisation of the GMO debate in Uganda.
The politics of
access to food
The link between food and politics emerged in 1973 following the devastating, but
disregarded, famine in the Wollo and Tigray regions of Ethiopia [Butterly &
Shepherd, 2010]. The authors argue that the Ethiopian case was monumental in
triggering two key events the following year. First, it largely led to the coup that
ousted Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie in 1974. Second, the famine led to the
first World Food Conference that united donors, the United Nations and
governments in Rome the same year. Further, Butterly and Shepherd assert that
decades and perhaps centuries of politically motivated starvation had been ignored
as was the case of the Great Irish Famine (1848), Soviet Union (1923), Ukraine
(1933), Bangladesh (1943), and China’s Great Leap Famine (1958). Recently, the
Tigray region of Ethiopia suffered a manmade famine planned by the Ethiopian
and Eritrean regimes for the region’s attempt to secede [Weldemichel, 2022]. Even
more recently, the European Union blamed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as the
major cause of a global food crisis [Davies, 2022]. From the scholars’ assertions, it
can be argued that the case of Ethiopia was an eye opener to the fact that governors
can define who suffers, when and where the starvation takes place, and how the
government and international community react to the crisis as described in media
reports. Indeed, high food prices were cited as one of the reasons for the 2019 coup
in Sudan.
Uganda’s response to the low prices in 2008 suggests that the government is alive
to the political implications of hunger, although many shortages of food have been
ignored in the past. In July 2022, political leaders from Karamoja sub-region
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 6
appealed to the central government to provide food in the wake of a fatal famine
[Onyango & Kamurungi, 2022] Conceivably, the political implications could
explain the government’s reluctance to adopt GMOs. In ethnic societies like
Uganda, every tribe is associated with certain food, much the same way some
religions forbid the consumption of selected foods [Kikulwe, Wesseler &
Falck-Zepeda, 2011; Muggaga et al., 2017]. It, then, appears that any alterations in
the production of food disrupts societal settings since food is a key component of
religious rituals and group identities. The link between food and politics also
influences research and international relations as demonstrated by the results of a
newspaper content analysis and interviews conducted for this study.
Methodology A content analysis of 317 stories published over a period of four years (2012–2015)
in two Ugandan national dailies — the New Vision and the Daily Monitor — was
conducted. The articles were selected from the 2,924 newspaper copies (1462 from
each publication) that were reviewed. The period 2012–2015 is important because
the Biotechnology Bill was enacted in 2012, and in 2015 the ruling National
Resistance Movement party resolved to support the Bill if it was presented before
Parliament. The two leading newspapers were chosen because, unlike tabloids,
elite newspapers usually avoid sensational reporting on “contentious” issues in
society [Beyeler & Kriesi, 2005, p. 100]. For their elite nature, the publications are
often reviewed by almost all radio and television stations. Moreover, the
publications are read by the elite who influence public agenda and legislation.
The study focussed on issues such as agricultural production, effects on the
environment, health risks, and GMO labelling. The stories chosen had to bear the
word biotechnology, GMO, GMF, genetic engineering or a combination of any of
these words. The study considered all stories in the newspaper i.e. front page,
news, cartoon, opinion, pull-out and sports pages. Articles which contained any of
the key words were coded. The dominant meaning of the story was taken to
constitute a theme. A coding sheet was developed based on the science-in-society
communication model to reflect and categorise how experts and non-experts
interact with the science of GMOs. The coding sheet captured the date, position,
size, source of information, and the key words related to GMOs in the story, and
the issue-category the information was related. Two coders were selected and
trained before the pre-testing of the coding sheet. After pre-testing, a comparison
by the principal investigator revealed that the inter-coder reliability was 75%. The
coders harmonised their coding and the inter-coder reliability increased to 86% for
the actual coding. The articles were aggregated by theme and presented in Table 1.
Interviews were conducted with three anti-GMO activists from food rights’ NGOs,
four biotechnologists (scientists involved in breeding GMOs), 10 science
journalists, and two members of the Parliamentary Science and Technology
Committee — the chairperson and the clerk to the Committee. The chairperson
was chosen because he was the political head (and face) of the committee, and the
clerk was the technical head by virtue of her legal background and having been a
parliamentary staff longer than the Members of Parliament on the Committee.
Only those two members of the committee were available for interviews. The
activists, biotechnologists and Parliamentarian had all appeared as sources in the
newspapers articles analysed. Only activists and biotechnologists who were
available were interviewed for the study. The 10 science journalists were identified
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 7
based on their by-lines in the content analysed. Four of the 10 journalists were
female. The age range for journalists was 28–45. In other words, all the journalists
had experience in reporting about GMOs. Interviews with activists,
biotechnologists, and journalists were stopped because saturation had been
reached. The respondents are identified using letters in this report to ensure their
anonymity and to protect them from any possible repercussions as a result of
participating in this study. The shortest interview was 11 minutes and the longest
was 17. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The
analysis was done using Atlas.ti. to generate themes and quotations. The analysis
was done by one person.
Results The results are presented in form of tables and text. The tables contain figures, and
the text includes some quotations from respondents. The results from content
analysis are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Articles by focus.
Issue-Category Total Percentage
Food production 140 44%
Regulation 82 26%
Health risks 41 13%
Effects on environment 29 9%
Other issues 16 5%
GMO labelling 6 2%
Unidentifiable 3 1%
From Table 1, the use of GMOs in food production dominated newspaper coverage
at 44%. The Bill was also heavily covered in relation to how the science will be
regulated, to minimise the environmental and health risks. Many articles mooted
GMO labelling as a way of preventing accidental consumption of GMOs. Other
issues included the intellectual property rights in relation to the seeds, loss of
market for organic agricultural products as mistrust of the ingredients raises.
The issues identified through the content analysis i.e. issues associated with food
production, effects on the environment, health, regulation and legislation, labelling,
privatisation of seed production and intellectual property tend to be driven by
politics. It is important to note that stories related to biotechnology as aggregated
in Table 1 appeared as spikes. The spikes usually occurred when a politician, such
as the president, a minister or a head of a government department, made a positive
or negative reference to biotechnology, especially in the context of food. This
finding confirms Scheufele’s [2014] contention that the politicisation of an issue
draws more attention to it, thereby making it sellable.
Indeed, the anecdotes from the interviewees are in sync with the view that politics
drives or impedes adoption of (food) technology. Some excerpts from the
interviews indicate how stakeholders attempt to court or provoke politicians in the
GMO debate. The results show a “rising curve of the level of awareness and
mistrust” in government institutions’ capacity to “enforce laws in public interest”
(Activist B); an effort by scientists to protect their ideas and “earn maximally from
them all the time” (Scientist B); an attempt by all stakeholders to influence
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 8
Table 2. Summary of responses from interviews about GMOs.
Respondent Description of GMO debate
Activist A The bill is out to promote multinational seed companies
Activist B – The debate shows a rising curve of the level of awareness and
mistrust in government institutions’ capacity to enforce laws in
public interest
– Scientists have not defined the challenge of food in depth
– Stampede
– The bill is a broader subject under a narrow context
Activist C Media distort issues related to the debate
Scientist B An effort by scientists to protect their ideas and “earn maximally
from them all the time”
Journalist F – An attempt by all stakeholders to influence legislation
– Every side thinks you have been bribed to write about their
nemesis
Member of Parliament An attempt to monopolise the market by GMO promoters or
organic agents
Journalist G The debate is marked by ignorance among stakeholders of the
implications of adopting GMOs
Clerk The Bill aims at ensuring safety of agricultural biotechnology
development
Journalist A Journalists lack language and are not willing to read about GMOs
Journalist C Journalists need training to know what to look out for
legislation (Journalist F); an attempt to monopolise the market by GMO promoters
or organic agents (Member of Parliament); and “ignorance among stakeholders” of
the implications of adopting GMOs (Journalist G). All these factors contribute to
the emotions that manifest in the debate on the issue of GMOs in Uganda.
The anti-GMO activists claim that the proponents of GMOs have not defined the
challenge of food production in depth. Activists argue that the problem of food
and food insecurity being results of poor breeding is a creation of the scientists.
Activist B called this a “stampede” in the debate. A summary of the accusations is
presented in Table 2.
The debate on GMFs appears to be informed by the scandals in several
departments of government that have aggravated corruption, land grabbing,
state-inspired violence, electoral malpractices and impunity among other
governance vices. The scandals in other sectors have heightened the mistrust in
government institutions to regulate GMFs.
For instance, the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)
itself is riddled with scandals. The government newspaper, the New Vision,
reported that MAAIF had spent a colossal five billion shillings (about $1,388,888)
on buying eight bulls from South Africa [New Vision, 2017]. The government has
also failed in running its own ranches that it inherited from past regimes [Okuda,
2017]. With government research institutions not declaring substantial non-taxable
revenue as profits from their harvest and because of their inefficient management,
public mistrust related to GMFs is unavoidable. A summary of the descriptions
from the content analysis is provided in Table 3.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 9
Table 3. Summary of responses from content analysis.
Scientists’ description of activists Activists description of GMO (scientists/
pro-GMO politicians)
Anti-GMO activists are denialists because
Uganda already had GMOs imported in the
form of food, medicine, poultry and animal
products, chocolate, yogurt, juice, and peanuts
GMO scientists are crooks, renegades,
terrorists and fundamentalists
Activists are opportunists GMO science is strange
GMOs are a solution to food security GMO science is demonic
GMOs are a solution to pests and diseases GMOs are problematic
GMOs increase yields and farmers’ income Introducing GMOs is a sign that Government
has failed to improve agriculture
Hope for more nutritious food resilient to
drought GMOs are unnecessary
Uganda will lose the international market
Activists were promoting the agenda of foreign
organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends
of the Earth International
Scientists were promoting the agenda of
foreign firms such as Bayer and Syngenta
Politicians are liars who are deliberately
weakening the agricultural sector; failing to
respond adequately to climate change
warnings by reviving and establishing
irrigation schemes; and arguing that GMOs
will solve Uganda’s problems
Why scientists are
creating
collaborations
with journalists
and politicians
Based on the content analysis and the interviews, it is apt to argue that scientists
have limited control over the scientific agenda. Indeed, most scientists do not know
the political, economic and belief interests that shape and “control the flow of
money” [Harari, 2011, p. 304]. As patrons of science, the politicians determine the
relevance of the scientific knowledge by deciding whether, how and why science
should be applied or not. As such, it is the intertwining of science, industry, and
politics i.e. state machinery in capitalistic settings that empowers politicians to
decide how technology, including nuclear and biotechnology, are used even if
politicians do not know the science involved in making the products. Thus, based
on the content analysis and the interviews, the media operate at the border of
researchers, politicians, and business interests, and are likely to shape societal
perceptions about genetic engineering, its value and application in making GMOs
in the science-in-society model.
Moreover, journalists and science communicators should remember that scientific
developments are a demonstration of power [Horst, 2005]. Therefore,
disagreements in the media are testimony to the fact that science has a role in
determining the way society is governed. Indeed, the relationship between politics
and the media influences what the public knows about science — cancer,
HIV/Aids, and even biotechnology [Fowler & Gollust, 2015]. Thus, based on
content analysis and interviews, science is a political weapon at local, national and
international levels. As such, Ugandan scientists are bound by the Official Secrets
Act [Republic of Uganda, 1964], which requires government employees to be
cleared by government before releasing any information. Besides, one needs
approval by the Office of the President through the Uganda National Council of
Science and Technology (UNCST) before conducting any research in country.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 10
Therefore, it is imperative to assert that the “diffusion of scientific culture” requires
the public to use their “knowledge and skills” to face their lived challenges,
beyond knowledge acquired through the school curriculum, to achieve an attitude
of “participation and scepticism” [Govoni, 2010, p. 28]. Such a combination can be
a product of collaboration among science communicators, journalists, scientists and
politicians through the education system, or through orientation outside the
academic curricula. The training must consider the impact of the increasing
exchange of information through the Internet and social media in the international
sphere and its influence on public perceptions in demonstration of the influence of
society at local and international level in the generation of scientific knowledge.
Discussion From the preceding sections, international networks involving NGOs, farmers,
scientists, seed companies and governments influence decision-making on
adoption of technologies, with due consideration to international trade, health,
social and cultural factors. This argument is in line with scholarsly work which has
demonstrated that the issues of GMOs are beyond the scientific realm and
encompass sociology, anthropology, economics and politics [Mtui, 2011; Huff &
Kruszewska, 2016; Muzhinji & Ntuli, 2021; Randall, 2014]. Wenzelburger and
König [2017, p. 19], however, argues that while external influence is real,
governments avoid being seen as yielding to “external pressure” to adopt or reject
GMOs since liberalisation of GMOs can have direct consequences on support for
the government in power. These forces seem responsible for the complexity in
legislation and regulation of GMOs in Uganda. The Government’s inability to
predict the consequences of the adoption on its public support could explain its
reluctance in supporting commercialisation or out rightly rejecting GMOs, in a
relatively unstable political environment, open to conflict. Indeed, most of
Uganda’s neighbours in the SADC are equally unable to monitor GMOs and have
remained non-committal in their uptake of the technology [Mulwa et al., 2013].
The political panic over GMOs in Uganda seems to have been ‘imported’ from
oversees. While Europe sees GMFs as the future of food production, Russia and
Italy are increasing organic food production and stamping out GMOs [Russia
Today, 2017]. Besides, the United States ambassador to Uganda then, noted at a
‘Feed the Future Uganda Agricultural’ workshop in Kampala that Uganda’s fertile
soils, (without GMOs) have the capacity to feed 200 million people, beyond its
population, then, of 41 million [Ssenyonga, 2017]. The push by scientists,
government, and some companies such as Bayer, DuPont, and Syngenta to adopt
GMOs is weakened by campaigns by some developed countries to move away
from the same technology. Such confusing signals only add to the controversy and
leave the public wondering whether they should eat (grow) GMOs or leave them in
the laboratories. However, Falkner and Gupta [2009], and Seay Fleming [2022]
opine that such controversy is likely to facilitate national response to regulation of
GMOs to resonate with domestic politics rather than conform to the global
regulation of the same technology.
Uganda’s struggle to pass the law is reminiscent of other African countries facing
similar scenarios since the turn of the 21st Century. The reluctance to pass such
laws heightened when the U.S.A. demanded that African countries receive its food
aid unreservedly, with the motive of promoting its foreign policy and boosting its
multinational firms [Zerbe, 2004]. Even when faced with a severe hunger, Zambia
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 11
rejected consignments of US food in 2002, sparking a debate on GMOs on the
continent. Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria,
Zambia, and Zimbabwe are still struggling with this legislation [Cerier, 2017].
However, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Sudan and South Africa
have approved the growing of BT Cotton to revitalise their textile industries
[Akinbo et al., 2021].
With the help of NGOs and donors over the years, African elites have used their
affiliations to Europe to influence the enacting of stringent policies, regulations, and
legislation similar to their European counterparts [Bett, Ouma & De Groote, 2010],
where individual member states of the European Union have to decide whether or
not to cultivate or import GMOs and label them before distribution [Rzymski &
Królczyk, 2016]. There is no doubt that Uganda needs a law to regulate GMOs, but
the argument is about the strength of the law. Based on content analysis, the
scientists want the US approach where researchers have been allowed to patent
their products and commercialise the respective crops under research. Diplomacy
then becomes a key factor in determining whether Uganda is influenced by other
African countries or the multinational seed companies [Sida, 2021].
However, the NGOs want a rigorous law that will not burden Ugandans with
patents, while holding government, scientists, biotechnology institutions and their
funders accountable in case of liabilities resulting from their activities. In addition,
the Bill should cover other forms of biotechnology such as medical and industrial
products that may emanate from the agricultural products. With or without a law,
the debate is likely to be fuelled when ideas such as the impact of labelling on trade
exist and whether the public will perceive GMOs to be as safe as crops bred
through other means. The implication is that future debates may focus on whether
legislation should focus on not only the process of granting permission to research,
grow, market and the value-added products of GMOs as biotechnology advances.
The advancements in biotechnology are facing radical socio-political challenges in
regulation as mediatised by the newspapers and echoed by the interviewees. The
ethical, moral, legal, regulatory, and political challenges, are resulting from public
anxiety that Uganda is ill-equipped to resolve, considering the speed at which the
industry is changing. Moreover, science does not seem to have answers to all the
moral, philosophical and political issues raised by the activists in the
science-in-society model. Yet, pressure is mounting on leaders to balance what
science can do, and what is socially acceptable to the public. For this reason,
political decision-making becomes inevitable since public participation
significantly affects public policy in determining the social implication of the
application of GMOs [Pimbert & Barry, 2021; Scheufele, 2014].
From the content analysis and interviews, the scientists are more concerned about
the safety of GMOs than the politics surrounding food production. Politicians
oversee legislation and govern science. In their consultations, politicians listen to
both technocrats and voters. Voters may not be technical in scientific issues, but
they give the political class power. Government agencies such as the UNCST and
Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) are supposed to work hand-in-hand
with the research institutes to engage the public about new science, such as GMOs.
Politicians appoint the heads of those institutions. These and similar centres of
government set up to protect public interests can be commandeered by politicians
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 12
to work against the interests of citizens. By implication, the heads of such
institutions can be influenced to protect the interests of politicians and by extension
the politicians’ networks. Hence, politicians position themselves to be lobbied by
the (anti)GMO companies to cause regulatory organisations to bend policies in
their favour. GMOs tend to attract less controversy when they are presented as a
development issue in pull-outs or in the science pages, than when newspapers try
to play the watchdog role by presenting biotechnology as a political issue, in what
appears to be news values overriding the association between science and politics.
Politicisation of issues related to GMOs is comparable to debates on climate change
and COVID-19 where science-based issues become debased when individuals
misquote science to prove a point [Geiger, Gore, Squire & Attari, 2021].
Moreover, politicians decide policies on how to feed the population. The same
group is privileged to allocate funding to all sectors of the economy, including
scientific research. At the same time, they decide foreign policies by choosing the
countries and companies to trade with and the items to import or export, most of
the time. In addition, their interaction with local people can influence their
perception about GMFs. It is apt to assert that politicians not only determine
whether research should be done on GMOs or not, but can also influence the
market for GMOs by determining how people assess the probable effects of science
[Watson, 2016]. It is such influence that gives them access to media platforms,
where they often experience a multiplier effect of their power.
By implication, biotechnology is a political issue since access to food can be used as
a tool to control people or to influence international relations, as it happened in
Ethiopia, Ukraine, Russia, and Bangladesh discussed earlier [Davies, 2022;
Weldemichel, 2022]. If the new technology supports the status quo, it will receive
the approval of Government. The science-in-society model implies that public
participation in generation, application and governance of science and technology
is the inevitable. Much as the technocrats and the activists are driving the debate,
the decision to adopt biotechnology and GMOs is a signature away from the
politicians, who must balance the personal, technical, and public interests.
Therefore, based on content analysis and interviews, the science of GMOs is likely
to be aligned to the dominant political interests and quality of arguments both
sides put forward at the time of passing the law, as reflected in the media.
Implications of the
politicisation of
GMOs for
Uganda’s media
The politicisation of GMOs produces a paradox for the public by accelerating
uncertainty regarding the science and the products. On the one hand there is
‘scientification’ of the politics regarding GMOs, and on the other hand, there is
‘politicisation’ of the science of GMOs. Knowledge for and against GMOs is likely
to increase as pro-GMOs scientists continue to improve their research as a way of
exhibiting genetic engineering as a viable option for Uganda and to give
government reason to commercialise GMOs. Such a move will justify funding to
scientific activities in the face of politicians who allocate resources. But also,
activists are likely to be emboldened as they rely on court decisions in other
countries and as they provide anecdotes of countries where GMOs have failed or
have been rejected, citing the potential of accompanying herbicides in causing
cancer. Court decisions have already been a factor in Ghana [Issifu, 2018] and
U.S.A. [Bellon, 2018]. Based on the rulings in other countries, the activists may
argue that the scientists are creating bioweapons for the nationals, much in the
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 13
same way they create toxins. The pro and anti-GMO groups are likely to appeal to
the the media in lobbying government to accept their respective positions since the
GMO media space acts like a referendum challenging the authority of decision
makers in Uganda. Given the centrality of food in human existence and how
politicians influence its production, processing, and access, the GMOs debate is
likely to be embedded in public life, and journalists may find it inevitable to frame
the emerging controversy as politicians highlight it on their menu of issues in
society [DeRosier et al., 2015; Kahuthia, 2021; Evanega et al., 2022].
It then becomes necessary for scientists to look for visibility and for their
institutions to try much to help the scientists get the necessary promotion, since
publicity gives the science facility a competitive edge in lobbying. As such, public
relations (advertorials) has become part of science as a good or bad press may have
a corresponding effect on research funding, career, and position in the organisation.
In the process of seeking visibility, sometimes, weak findings are packaged to
appeal to the media. Skilled journalists can help the public scrutinise weak
findings. An influential politician may be co-opted to support the biology,
chemistry, physics or genetics, or GMOs without ever seeing the inside of a
laboratory. For this and other reasons, science writing involves constraints and
negotiations as many facts transcend the boundaries of laboratories. This was the
case with HIV, climate change in many countries, and currently Covid-19
[Lukanda, 2018, 2019; Lukanda & Walulya, 2021].
Moreover, any story taken outside the realm of the “science section” is more likely
to be politicised as editors attempt to popularise it through sensationalism
[Palmerini, 2010, p. 127]. As discovered in the content analysis and interviews,
scientists are aware of the possible misquotation in the process and usually require
journalists to share the draft with them before it is published to check for factual
errors, and/or misquotations if they do not trust the writer. As a result, journalists
need to negotiate with both the science institution and the news editors regarding
the framing, positioning, and perhaps length of the article. Control over this
process is dependent on the experience of the journalist and the respect accorded to
the writer in the newsroom. Failure by the journalist to manage the process leads to
polarisation of the debate as science may be falsely critiqued against non-scientific
facts, especially in the post-truth age where social media lace discussions, leading
to politicisation of science-in-society.
The politicisation of the science of GMOs may accelerate the use of diplomacy since
Ethiopia, Africa’s diplomatic hub, established a policy to allow research in GMO
technology [Sida, 2021]. In this case, countries hosting the multinational companies
may resort to their diplomatic core to influence policymakers in Uganda to adopt
the technology by portraying the largely untested GMOs, in newspapers, as being
in the public interest.
Conclusion GMOs have caused world-wide debate that has made scientists and activists on
both sides to point bayonets at one another, requiring legal courts to decide on the
truth of laboratory facts, and politicians to take action based on limited knowledge
and expected voter support. With developed countries divided on whether GMOs
are the solution to feeding the growing population in the age of climate change,
some countries backtracking, taking precaution, and outrightly rejecting GMOs,
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 14
countries yet to commercialise GMOs, such as Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania are left
at the crossroads. Besides, the future of commercialising GMOs in Uganda remains
uncertain, as the country has posted mixed yields using the current technology.
The support for, and opposition to, GMOs is an indictment on Uganda’s regulatory
institutions. In sum, the agricultural sector is enveloped more in governance rather
than in scientific issues. In the case of Uganda, a country with fertile soils,
perennial rivers and lakes, and receiving a good amount of tropical rainfall, the
negative public perception about GMOs is influenced by mistrust in the political
governance to manage such a sensitive technology basing on past failures in other
areas of agriculture as portrayed in the media. Therefore, the highlighted
drawbacks in the entire agricultural sector demonstrate that the GMO approach is
a political jinx to solving the problems or it is simply an item on the political
agenda to demonstrate that leaders care about their nationals.
This paper has contributed to establishing the feedback loop between media,
politics and science in relation to the science-in-society model and GMO debate in
Uganda. The newspapers tended to politicise the science of GMOs and to
‘scientify’ the politics related to GMOs. With some developed countries divided
over adopting GMOs, backtracking on the technology and others taking
precautions, uncertainty has contributed to the controversy as Uganda remains at
the crossroads of taking up GMOs. Uptake is further complicated by the lack of
trust in government institutions to manage such delicate technology based on past
failures. By implication, being a major influence in shaping public perception,
media politicisation of GMOs produces a paradox for the public by accelerating
uncertainty regarding the science and the products from GMOs.
Limitations of the
study
A key limitation of this study is that it considered only two mainstream
newspapers for content analysis, and left out the other newspapers, including the
tabloids, which are also major sources of information. The choice of newspapers
was based on the fact that the Daily Monitor and the New Vision are currently the
oldest newspapers in the country, and are often referenced by policymakers,
including Members of Parliament in their deliberations. The study ignored radio,
which is the most prevalent sources of information in Uganda, because there are no
systematic mechanisms for archiving in the country’s broadcast sector. Although
the study considered only a four-year period, it provides an important starting
point for understanding the politics and foreign interests in the GMO debate from
a newspaper angle, especially in low income countries such as Uganda. While the
findings may not be generalised because they are based on a small sample, the
study’s key strength is that it innovatively combines content analysis with
interviews of key actors such as journalists, activists, scientists and a Parliament in
the context of an African country.
Funding The lead author is a research fellow at the Department of Journalism, Stellenbosch
University (South Africa).
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 15
References Aerni, P. (2018). The use and abuse of the term ‘GMO’ in the ‘common weal
rhetoric’ against the application of modern biotechnology in agriculture. In
H. S. James (Ed.), Ethical tensions from new technology: the case of agricultural
biotechnology (pp. 39–52). doi:10.1079/9781786394644.0039
Akinbo, O., Obukosia, S., Ouedraogo, J., Sinebo, W., Savadogo, M., Timpo, S., .. .
Ambali, A. (2021). Commercial release of genetically modified crops in
Africa: interface between biosafety regulatory systems and varietal release
systems. Frontiers in Plant Science 12, 605937. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.605937
Almeida, C. & Massarani, L. (2018). Farmers prevailing perception profiles
regarding GM crops: a classification proposal. Public Understanding of Science
27 (8), 952–966. doi:10.1177/0963662518766281
Bardin, B., Perrissol, S., Facca, L. & Smeding, A. (2017). From risk perception to
information selection... and not the other way round: selective exposure
mechanisms in the field of genetically modified organisms. Food Quality and
Preference 58, 10–17. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.015
Bauer, M. W. (2002). Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology:
a cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11 (2), 93–111.
doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/301
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N. & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS
survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding
of Science 16 (1), 79–95. doi:10.1177/0963662506071287
Bauer, M. W. & Gaskell, G. (Eds.) (2002). Biotechnology: the making of a global
controversy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Bellon, T. (2018, August 11). Monsanto ordered to pay $289 million in world’s first
Roundup cancer trial. Reuters. Retrieved from
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-cancer-lawsuit-
idUSKBN1KV2HB
Bett, C., Ouma, J. O. & De Groote, H. (2010). Perspectives of gatekeepers in the
Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food. Food Policy 35 (4),
332–340. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003
Beyeler, M. & Kriesi, H. (2005). Transnational protest and the public sphere.
Mobilization: an International Quarterly 10 (1), 95–109.
doi:10.17813/maiq.10.1.dq013h7nh027u126
Bode, L., Vraga, E. K. & Tully, M. (2021). Correcting misperceptions about
genetically modified food on social media: examining the impact of experts,
social media heuristics, and the gateway belief model. Science Communication
43 (2), 225–251. doi:10.1177/1075547020981375
Brants, K. & van Praag, P. (2017). Beyond media logic. Journalism Studies 18 (4),
395–408. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2015.1065200
Brüggemann, M. & Engesser, S. (2017). Beyond false balance: how interpretive
journalism shapes media coverage of climate change. Global Environmental
Change 42, 58–67. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.004
Bucchi, M. (2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science
22 (8), 904–915. doi:10.1177/0963662513498202
Bucchi, M. & Trench, B. (2016). Science communication and science in society:
a conceptual review in ten keywords. Tecnoscienza (Italian Journal of Science &
Technology Studies) 7 (2), 151–168. Retrieved from
http://www.tecnoscienza.net/index.php/tsj/article/view/277
Butterly, J. R. & Shepherd, J. (2010). Hunger: the biology and politics of starvation.
Hanover, NH, U.S.A.: Dartmouth College Press.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 16
Cerier, S. (2017, March 6). Led by Nigeria, Africa opening door to genetically
modified crop cultivation. Genetic Literacy Project. Retrieved March 3, 2018,
from https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/03/06/led-nigeria-africa-
gradually-opening-door-genetically-modified-crop-cultivation/
Cusack, L. (2017, September 13). EU rules Italian ban on GMO crop unlawful.
Reuters. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gmo-eu-court/eu-rules-italian-ban-
on-gmo-crop-unlawful-idUSKCN1BO1QN
Davies, A. (2022, June 7). Ukraine war: EU blames Russia for food crisis prompting
walkout. BBC. Retrieved June 7, 2022, from
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61714234
DeRosier, C., Sulemana, I., James, H. S., Valdivia, C., Folk, W. & Smith, R. D. (2015).
A comparative analysis of media reporting of perceived risks and benefits of
genetically modified crops and foods in Kenyan and international
newspapers. Public Understanding of Science 24 (5), 563–581.
doi:10.1177/0963662514568061
Dorius, S. F. & Lawrence-Dill, C. J. (2018). Sowing the seeds of scepticism: Russian
state news and anti-GMO sentiment. GM Crops & Food 9 (2), 53–58.
doi:10.1080/21645698.2018.1454192
Du, L. & Rachul, C. (2012). Chinese newspaper coverage of genetically modified
organisms. BMC Public Health 12, 326. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-326
Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, journalists and the meaning of uncertainty. In
S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating
uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59–80).
doi:10.4324/9781410601360
Ehrenberg, R. (2018, April 13). An anti-science political climate is driving scientists
to run for office. Science News. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/antiscience-political-
climate-driving-scientists-run-office
Einsiedel, E. & Thorne, B. (1999). Public responses to uncertainty. In
S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating
uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 43–58).
doi:10.4324/9781410601360
Evanega, S., Conrow, J., Adams, J. & Lynas, M. (2022). The state of the
‘GMO’debate — toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media
conversation on ag-biotech? GM Crops & Food 13 (1), 38–49.
doi:10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243
Eveland, W. P. & Cooper, K. E. (2013). An integrated model of communication
influence on beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110
(supplement_3), 14088–14095. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212742110
Falkner, R. & Gupta, A. (2009). The limits of regulatory convergence: globalization
and GMO politics in the south. International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law and Economics 9 (2), 113–133. doi:10.1007/s10784-009-9094-x
FAO (2017). Millions of people face food shortages in the Horn of Africa. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from
https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/468941/icode/
Fischer, K., Wennström, P. & Ågren, M. (2019). The Swedish media debate on GMO
1994–2017. Future Food Reports 10. Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, SLU Future Food. Uppsala, Sweden.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 17
Fowler, E. F. & Gollust, S. E. (2015). The content and effect of politicised health
controversies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
658 (1), 155–171. doi:10.1177/0002716214555505
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S. & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.) (1999). Communicating
uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science.
doi:10.4324/9781410601360
Galata, E. A. (2017). The cultivation of opinions. How did the press cover the last 16
years of experience with GMOs in Canada? Cogent Business & Management 4
(1), 1297212. doi:10.1080/23311975.2017.1297212
Galata, L., Karantininis, K. & Hess, S. (2014). Cross-atlantic differences in
biotechnology and GMOs: a media content analysis. In C. Zopounidis,
N. Kalogeras, K. Mattas, G. Dijk & G. Baourakis (Eds.), Agricultural cooperative
management and policy: new robust, reliable and coherent modelling tools
(pp. 299–314). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06635-6_16
Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news: the presentation of
the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of
Peace Research 2 (1), 64–90. doi:10.1177/002234336500200104
Geiger, N., Gore, A., Squire, C. V. & Attari, S. Z. (2021). Investigating similarities
and differences in individual reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
climate crisis. Climatic Change 167 (1–2), 1. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03143-8
GMWatch (2009, January 31). The world’s top 10 seed companies: who owns
nature? Retrieved March 5, 2018, from http://www.gmwatch.org/en/gm-
firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-seed-companies-who-owns-nature
Govoni, P. (2010). The rise and fall of science communication in late nineteenth
century Italy. In M. W. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, science and
society: science communication between news and public relations.
doi:10.4324/9780203942314
Gustafson, A. & Rice, R. E. (2019). The effects of uncertainty frames in three science
communication topics. Science Communication 41 (6), 679–706.
doi:10.1177/1075547019870811
Harari, Y. N. (2011). Sapiens: a brief history of humankind. London, U.K.: Vintage.
Hicks, D. J. (2017). Scientific controversies as proxy politics. Issues in Science and
Technology 33 (2), 67–73. Retrieved from
https://issues.org/scientific-controversies-as-proxy-politics/
Horst, M. (2005). Cloning sensations: mass mediated articulation of social
responses to controversial biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 14
(2), 185–200. doi:10.1177/0963662505050994
Huang, Q. (2020). Understanding public perceptions of genetically modified
organisms in China: the role that heuristics play during digital media
exposure. Chinese Journal of Communication 13 (3), 293–311.
doi:10.1080/17544750.2019.1673453
Huff, C. & Kruszewska, D. (2016). Banners, barricades, and bombs: the tactical
choices of social movements and public opinion. Comparative Political Studies
49 (13), 1774–1808. doi:10.1177/0010414015621072
ISAAA (2016). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2016. ISAAA Brief
No. 52. International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
Ithaca, NY, U.S.A. Retrieved from https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publica
tions/briefs/52/download/isaaa-brief-52-2016.pdf
ISAAA (2021). GM approval database. Retrieved from
https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 18
Issifu, R. (2018). Unravelling the GMO policy-making impasse: a qualitative content
analysis of the perceptions of Ghana’s anti-GMO groups on public participation and
trust (Masters dissertation, Master of Science in Development Studies, Lund
University, Lund, Sweden). Retrieved from
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8957166
James, C. (2014). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief
No. 49. International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA). Ithaca, NY, U.S.A. Retrieved from https://www.isaaa.org/resource
s/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/
Jia, H. (2022). Science in movements: knowledge control and social contestation in China’s
hydropower, GMO and nuclear controversies. doi:10.4324/9781003160212
Kahuthia, A. W. (2021). The influence of priming and framing of Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs) for food security: a case of the print media in Kenya (Doctoral
dissertation, Master of Arts in Communication, Daystar University, Nairobi,
Kenya). Retrieved from
http://repository.daystar.ac.ke/xmlui/handle/123456789/3903
Kikulwe, E. M., Wesseler, J. & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2011). Attitudes, perceptions, and
trust. Insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified
banana in Uganda. Appetite 57 (2), 401–413. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.001
Kuntz, M. (2012). The postmodern assault on science. EMBO Reports 13 (10),
885–889. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.130
Lamphere, J. A. & East, E. A. (2017). Monsanto’s biotechnology politics: discourses
of legitimation. Environmental Communication 11 (1), 75–89.
doi:10.1080/17524032.2016.1198823
Lukanda, I. N. (2018). From lab to fork? Press coverage and public (mis)perception of crop
biotechnology in Uganda (Ph.D. thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch,
South Africa). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/104895
Lukanda, I. N. (2019). Implications of media-scientists’ relationship on crop
biotechnology debate in Uganda. In Y. Bamutaze, S. Kyamanywa, B. R. Singh,
G. Nabanoga & R. Lal (Eds.), Agriculture and ecosystem resilience in Sub Saharan
Africa: livelihood pathways under changing climate (pp. 633–652).
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12974-3_28
Lukanda, I. N. & Walulya, G. (2021). Media framing of COVID-19 in the hybrid
democracies of Uganda and Tanzania. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 17 (2),
73–96.
Lynas, M. (2015, October 24). With G.M.O. policies, Europe turns against science.
The New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-
policies-europe-turns-against-science.html
Malyska, A., Bolla, R. & Twardowski, T. (2016). The role of public opinion in
shaping trajectories of agricultural biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology 34
(7), 530–534. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.03.005
Mintz, K. (2017). Arguments and actors in recent debates over US genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 7
(1), 1–9. doi:10.1007/s13412-016-0371-z
Monitor (2018, August 16). Produce prices: govt must stop fire fighting. Retrieved
August 17, 2018, from
http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Editorial/Produce-prices--Govt--must-
stop-fire-fighting/689360-4714526-txqmwp/index.html
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 19
Mtui, G. Y. S. (2011). Status of biotechnology in Eastern and Central Africa.
Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Reviews 6 (9), 183–198.
doi:10.5897/BMBR11.021
Muggaga, C., Ongeng, D., Mugonola, B., Okello-Uma, I., Kaaya, N. A. & Taylor, D.
(2017). Influence of sociocultural practices on food and nutrition security in
Karamoja subregion of Uganda. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 56 (5), 424–447.
doi:10.1080/03670244.2017.1366318
Mugisha, M. (2000, July 25). 115 die of hunger in Karamoja as drought hits. New
Vision. Retrieved July 22, 2016, from
https://reliefweb.int/report/uganda/115-people-die-hunger-uganda
Mulwa, R., Wafula, D., Karembu, M. & Waithaka, M. (2013). Estimating the
potential economic benefits of adopting Bt cotton in selected COMESA
countries. AgBioForum 16 (1), 14–26. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10355/37352
Muzhinji, N. & Ntuli, V. (2021). Genetically modified organisms and food security
in Southern Africa: conundrum and discourse. GM Crops & Food 12 (1), 25–35.
doi:10.1080/21645698.2020.1794489
Nakato, J. (2017, March 24). LC polls money was used to combat drought —
Rugunda. New Vision. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from
https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1449417/lc-polls-money-
combat-drought-rugunda
New Vision (2017, September 11). Govt spends Sh5B on eight bulls. Retrieved
September 11, 2017, from https://www.facebook.com/thenewvision/posts
/government-spends-sh-5-billon-on-8-bulls-know-why-in-your-copy-of-the
-new-vision/10155824701939078/
Ojanji, W. & Otunge, D. (2017). Media reporting on biotechnology: perspectives from
African journalists. African Agricultural Technology Foundation. Nairobi,
Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.aatf-africa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Reporting-Biotech-web-1.pdf
Okuda, I. (2017, April 11). Govt to give away Aswa, Nshaara ranches to NRM
party, farmers. Monitor. Retrieved September 9, 2017, from
http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Govt-to-give-away-Aswa--
Nshaara-ranches-to-NRM-party--farmers/688334-3885386-
mgsl56/index.html
Omeje, C. H. (2019). Media coverage and framing of genetically modified crops: a case
study of science journalism in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch
University, Stellenbosch, South Africa). Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/105750
Onyango, J. & Kamurungi, E. (2022, July 15). Famine consumes Karamoja. Monitor.
Retrieved from https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/famin
e-consumes-karamoja-3880508
Palmerini, C. (2010). Science reporting as negotiation. In M. W. Bauer & M. Bucchi
(Eds.), Journalism, science and society: science communication between news and
public relations (pp. 113–122). doi:10.4324/9780203942314
Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public
communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110
(supplement_3), 14102–14109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212745110
Pimbert, M. P. & Barry, B. (2021). Let the people decide: citizen deliberation on the
role of GMOs in Mali’s agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 38 (4),
1097–1122. doi:10.1007/s10460-021-10221-1
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 20
Randall, R. (2014). Source affiliation and framing of the GMO debate by East Africa’s
Nation Media Group (Masters dissertation, Master of Arts in International
Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.). Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1773/26780
Republic of Uganda (1964). Official Secrets Act. Parliament of Uganda. Kampala,
Uganda.
Republic of Uganda (2008). Biotechnology and biosafety law process in Uganda.
Uganda Biotechnology, Biosafety Consortium, Uganda National Council of
Science and Technology. Kampala, Uganda.
Republic of Uganda (2012). The National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill.
Parliament of Uganda. Kampala, Uganda.
Reul, R., Paulussen, S., Raeijmaekers, D., van der Steen, L. & Maeseele, P. (2018).
Professional journalistic routines and the protest paradigm: the Big Potato
Swap in traditional and alternative media. Journalism 19 (7), 899–916.
doi:10.1177/1464884916636170
Russia Today (2017, September 20). Russia looks to become leading organic food
exporter as Europe sees future in GMO. Retrieved September 23, 2018, from
https://www.rt.com/business/403932-russia-organic-food-export-gmo/
Rzymski, P. & Królczyk, A. (2016). Attitudes toward genetically modified
organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO? Food Security 8 (3), 689–697.
doi:10.1007/s12571-016-0572-z
Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M. & Gomiero, T. (2017, May 12). Forcing consensus is bad
for science and society. The Conversation. Retrieved from
https://theconversation.com/forcing-consensus-is-bad-for-science-and-
society-77079
Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (supplement_4),
13585–13592. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111
Schwörer, J., Vidal, X. R. & Vallejo, S. M. (2022). The rise and fall of GMOs in
politics: party positions and mainstream party behaviour in Western Europe.
Environmental Sociology. doi:10.1080/23251042.2022.2115654
Seay Fleming, C. (2022). ‘Biotechnologizing’ or ‘democratizing’? Unraveling the
diversity of resistance to GMOs in Guatemala. Canadian Food Studies 9 (2),
125–146. doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v9i2.528
Secko, D. M., Amend, E. & Friday, T. (2013). Four models of science journalism:
a synthesis and practical assessment. Journalism Practice 7 (1), 62–80.
doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.691351
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annexes. Montreal,
Canada. Retrieved from
https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf
Sida, T. (2021). Will Ethiopia be a springboard or a stonewall for GM crops in
Africa? Nature Biotechnology 39 (2), 147–148. doi:10.1038/s41587-021-00827-5
Ssenyonga, A. (2017, September 20). Uganda has potential to feed 200 million
people — US envoy. New Vision. Retrieved September 20, 2017, from
https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1461998/uganda-
potential-feed-200-million-people-us-envoy
Statista (2019). Area of genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide in 2019, by
country. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/271897/leadin
g-countries-by-acreage-of-genetically-modified-crops/
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 21
van der Meer, T. G. L. A. & Jin, Y. (2020). Seeking formula for misinformation
treatment in public health crises: the effects of corrective information type
and source. Health Communication 35 (5), 560–575.
doi:10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295
Vigani, M. (2017). The role of mass media and lobbies in the formulation of GMO
regulations. In A. A. Adenle, E. J. Morris & D. J. Murphy (Eds.), Genetically
Modified Organisms in developing countries: risk analysis and governance
(pp. 200–212). doi:10.1017/9781316585269.018
Watson, J. (2016). Bring climate change back from the future. Nature 534 (7608), 437.
doi:10.1038/534437a
Weldemichel, T. G. (2022). Inventing hell: how the Ethiopian and Eritrean regimes
produced famine in Tigray. Human Geography 15 (3), 290–294.
doi:10.1177/19427786211061431
Wenzelburger, G. & König, P. D. (2017). Different by design? Analyzing how
governments justify GMO liberalization through the lens of strategic
communication. Review of Policy Research 34 (3), 331–356.
doi:10.1111/ropr.12237
World Bank (2021). Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modelled
ILO estimate) — Uganda. Retrieved from
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?locations=UG
Zerbe, N. (2004). Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in
Southern Africa. Food Policy 29 (6), 593–608. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.09.002
Authors Ivan Nathanael Lukanda is a Lecturer in the Department of Journalism and
Communication Makerere University Kampala-Uganda. He is a Research Fellow at
the Department of Journalism Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
!ivanlukanda@gmail.com.
Sara Namusoga-Kaale is a Lecturer in the Department of Journalism and
Communication Makerere University Kampala-Uganda.
!snamusoga@gmail.com.
George Claassen is a professor of science journalism and Stellenbosch University in
South Africa.
!gnclaassen@sun.ac.za.
Lukanda, I. N., Namusoga-Kaale, S. and Claassen, G. (2023). ‘Media as mediatorsHow to cite
in a science-based issue: politics, foreign influence and implications on adoption of
Genetically Modified Organisms in food production in Uganda’.
JCOM 22 (01), A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203.
c
The Author(s). This article is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution — NonCommercial — NoDerivativeWorks 4.0 License.
ISSN 1824-2049. Published by SISSA Medialab. jcom.sissa.it
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22010203 JCOM 22(01)(2023)A03 22
