Ethical Issues and Potential Stakeholder Priorities Associated with the Application of Genomic Technologies Applied to Animal Production Systems

Articles

Abstract

This study considered the range of ethical issues and potential stakeholder priorities associated with the application of genomic technologies applied to animal production systems, in particular those which utilised genomic technologies in accelerated breeding rather than the application of genetic modification. A literature review was used to inform the development of an ethical matrix, which was used to scope the potential perspectives of different agents regarding the acceptability of genomic technologies, as opposed to genetic modification (GM) techniques applied to animal production systems. There are very few studies carried out on stakeholder (including consumer) attitudes regarding the application of genomics to animal production in the human food chain and it may be that this technology is perceived as no more than an extension of traditional breeding techniques. While this is an area which needs more research, it would appear from this study that genomics, because it avoids many of the disadvantages and consumer perceptions associated with GM, is likely to prove a more publicly acceptable route than is GM for the development of healthier and more productive animals. However, stakeholders also need to have an approach to the moral status of the animals involved that finds credibility and acceptability with civil society.

Keywords

Genomic technology Genetic modification Animal production Ethical matrix Stakeholder 

References

  1. Berry, D. P., Wall, E., & Pryce, J. E. (2014). Genetics and genomics of reproductive performance in dairy and beef cattle. Animal, 8(s1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blokhuis, H. J., Jones, R. B., Geers, R., Miele, M., & Veissier, I. (2003). Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare, 12(4), 445–455.Google Scholar
  3. Boland, M. J., Rae, A. N., Vereijken, J. M., Meuwissen, M. P., Fischer, A. R., van Boekel, M. A., et al. (2013). The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 29(1), 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botreau, R., Veissier, I., & Perny, P. (2009). Overall assessment of animal welfare: Strategy adopted in welfare quality. Animal Welfare, 18(4), 363–370.Google Scholar
  5. Bredahl, L. (1999). Consumers’ cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite, 33(3), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bremer, S. (2013). Mobilising high-quality knowledge through dialogic environmental governance: A comparison of approaches and their institutional settings. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 16(1), 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, S. (2009). Should we enhance animals? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(11), 678–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan, S., & Harris, J. (2011). Does a fish need a bicycle? Animals and evolution in the age of biotechnology. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20(3), 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chao, A., Thun, M. J., Connell, C. J., McCullough, M. L., Jacobs, E. J., Flanders, W. D., et al. (2005). Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(2), 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapotin, S. M., & Wolt, J. D. (2007). Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: Meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Research, 16(6), 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christiansen, S. B., & Sandøe, P. (2000). Bioethics: Limits to the interference with life. Animal Reproduction Science, 60, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coles, D., & Frewer, L. J. (2013). Nanotechnology applied to European food production: A review of ethical and regulatory issues. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 34(1), 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniel, C. R., Cross, A. J., Koebnick, C., & Sinha, R. (2011). Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutrition, 14(4), 575–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ericksen, P. (2014). Vulnerability of food security to global change. In B. Freedman (Ed.), Global environmental change (pp. 677–680). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrari, A. (2012). Animal disenhancement for animal welfare: The apparent philosophical conundrums and the real exploitation of animals. A response to Thompson and Palmer. NanoEthics, 6(1), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiester, A. (2008). Justifying a presumption of restraint in animal biotechnology research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(6), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (1996). Rome declaration and World food summit plan of action. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X8346E/x8346e02.htm#P1-10. Accessed 1 Sep 2013.
  19. Fraser, D. (2008). Welfare standards associated with intensive production systems being introduced to meet increased demand. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(4), 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frewer, L. J., Coles, D., Houdebine, L. M., & Kleter, G. A. (2014). Attitudes towards genetically modified animals in food production. British Food Journal, 116(8), 1291–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frewer, L. J., Kleter, G. A., Brennan, M., Coles, D., Fischer, A. R. H., Houdebine, L. M., et al. (2013a). Genetically modified animals from life-science, socio-economic and ethical perspectives: Examining issues in an EU policy context. New Biotechnology, 30(5), 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frewer, L. J., van der Lans, I. A., Fischer, A. R., Reinders, M. J., Menozzi, D., Zhang, X., et al. (2013b). Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification (GM). A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 30(2), 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuller, F., Tuan, F., & Wailes, E. (2002). Rising demand for meat: Who will feed China’s hogs? China’s food and agricultural: Issues for the 21st Century (pp. 17–19). Washington: USDA.Google Scholar
  24. Gao, Y. U., Zhang, R., Hu, X., & Li, N. (2007). Application of genomic technologies to the improvement of meat quality of farm animals. Meat Science, 77(1), 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., et al. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Godfray, H. C. J., & Garnett, T. (2014). Food security and sustainable intensification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1639), 0273–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. GO-Science. (2011). Foresight. The future of food and farming. Final project report. The Government Office for Science: London.Google Scholar
  28. Hocking, P. M. (1994). Assessment of the welfare of food restricted male broiler breeder poultry with musculoskeletal disease. Research in Veterinary Science, 57(1), 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hubbard, C., & Scott, K. (2011). Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare, 20(1), 79–87.Google Scholar
  30. Kaiser, M. (2005). Assessing ethics and animal welfare in animal biotechnology for farm production. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties, 24(1), 75.Google Scholar
  31. Kaiser, M., Millar, K., Thorstensen, E., & Tomkins, S. (2007). Developing the ethical matrix as a decision support framework: GM fish as a case study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, K. S., Larsen, N., Short, T., Plastow, G., & Rothschild, M. F. (2000). A missense variant of the porcine melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) gene is associated with fatness, growth, and feed intake traits. Mammalian Genome, 11(2), 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kunzmann, P. (2010). Biotechnology, battery farming and animal dignity. In F. T. Gottwald (Ed.), Food ethics (pp. 101–116). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laible, G., & Alonso-González, L. (2009). Gene targeting from laboratory to livestock: Current status and emerging concepts. Biotechnology Journal, 4(9), 1278–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lassen, J., Gjerris, M., & Sandøe, P. (2006). After Dolly—ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology, 65(5), 992–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lutsey, P. L., Steffen, L. M., & Stevens, J. (2008). Dietary intake and the development of the metabolic syndrome. The atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Circulation, 117(6), 754–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Macnaughten, P. (2004). Animals in their nature. A case study on public attitudes to animals, GM and ‘nature’. Sociology, 38(3), 533–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marris, C. (2001). Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports, 2(7), 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Menozzi, D., Mora, C., & Merigo, A. (2012). Genetically modified salmon for dinner? Transgenic salmon marketing scenarios. AgBioForum, 15(3), 276–293.Google Scholar
  40. Mepham, B. (2000). A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mora, C., Menozzi, D., Kleter, G., Aramyan, L. H., Valeeva, N. I., & Reddy, G. P. (2012). Factors affecting the adoption of genetically modified animals in the food and pharmaceutical chains. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 1(3), 313–329.Google Scholar
  42. Novoselova, T. A., Meuwissen, M. P., & Huirne, R. (2007). Adoption of GM technology in livestock production chains: an integrating framework. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 18(4), 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oltenacu, P. A., & Broom, D. M. (2010). The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare, 19(supplement 1), 39–49.Google Scholar
  44. Palmer, C. (2011). Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: A response to Thompson. NanoEthics, 5(1), 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pascalev, A. K. (2006). We and they: Animal welfare in the era of advanced agricultural biotechnology. Livestock Science, 103(3), 208–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S., & Ng, S. W. (2012). Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rothschild, M. F. (2004). Porcine genomics delivers new tools and results: This little piggy did more than just go to market. Genetical Research, 83(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothschild, M. F., & Plastow, G. S. (2008). Impact of genomics on animal agriculture and opportunities for animal health. Trends in Biotechnology, 26(1), 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schenk, M. F., van der Marinus, P., Maas, M., Smulders, J. M., Gilissen, L. J. W. J., Fischer, A. R. H., et al. (2011). Consumer attitudes towards hypoallergenic apples that alleviate mild apple allergy. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scott, M. E., Nolan, A., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (2001). Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: A framework for measurement, Section A, Animal science supplement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 30, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Siebert, R., Toogood, M. D., & Knierim, A. (2006). Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis, 46, 318–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tenbült, P., de Vries, N. K., Dreezens, E., & Martijn, C. (2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45(1), 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson, P. (2008). The opposite of human enhancement: Nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. Nanoethics, 2(3), 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van den Heuvel, T., Renes, R. J., Gremmen, B., van Woerkum, C., & van Trijp, H. (2008). Consumers’ images regarding genomics as a tomato breeding technology:“maybe it can provide a more tasty tomato”. Euphytica, 159(1–2), 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Tassell, C. P., Smith, T. P., Matukumalli, L. K., Taylor, J. F., Schnabel, R. D., Lawley, C. T., et al. (2008). SNP discovery and allele frequency estimation by deep sequencing of reduced representation libraries. Nature Methods, 5(3), 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Verhoog, H. (2003). Naturalness and the GM of animals. Trends in Biotechnology, 21(7), 294–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang, Y., & Beydoun, M. A. (2009). Meat consumption is associated with obesity and central obesity among US adults. International Journal of Obesity, 33(6), 621–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Warkentin, T. (2009). Dis/integrating animals: Ethical dimensions of the genetic engineering of animals for human consumption. In C. Gigliotti (Ed.), Leonardo’s choice (pp. 151–171). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weckert, J. (2012). Symposium on animal disenhancement: Introduction. Nanoethics, 6(1), 39–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Womack, J. E. (2005). Advances in livestock genomics: Opening the barn door. Genome Research, 15(12), 1699–1705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Food and Society Group, SAFRDNewcastle UniversityNewcastle Upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Centre for Professional EthicsUCLAN School of HealthPrestonUK
  3. 3.Agricultural Marketing and Business, Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations