Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first search was conducted on 16 August 2013 in Web of Science, which yielded 72 relevant papers, and on 15 August 2013 in Scopus which yielded 88 relevant papers. After these lists were combined and duplicates removed, 127 papers remained for review.

  2. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/lmd/campain/svalbard-global-seed-vault.html?id=462220, accessed 14th May 2014.

  3. http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=54-02-05-00, accessed 14th May 2014.

  4. An example research project is the Application of genomics to improve swine health and welfare project (http://www.swineimprovement.com/). The international project aimed at identifying genes related to disease susceptibility for two major global diseases in pigs has numerous objectives such as the potential for reducing antibiotic use in pigs, enhanced quality of pig life through disease resistance and reduced emotional and economic costs for producers. The possibilities for identifying the specific combinations of genes that identify disease susceptibility are limited, due to complexity and issues related to heritability. In this project an international multidisciplinary consortium of researchers is attempting to combine information and analytical tools to identify specific areas of the genetic code to focus on for these diseases. As the research advances it may become possible to select animals with higher levels of disease resistance in breeding reducing the incidence of the diseases globally.

  5. An example research project is “Whole genome selection though genome imputation of beef cattle”. (http://www.genomecanada.ca/medias/pdf/en/whole-genome-selection.pdf). The research involves the development of low cost tests which will allow the inferences of an entire genome from a relatively small number of genetic markers in cattle, providing breeding information at an early age. The research aims to improve production efficiency in cattle through improved feed efficiency.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bredahl, L. (1999). Consumers’ cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite, 33(3), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S. (2009). Should we enhance animals? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(11), 678–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapotin, S. M., & Wolt, J. D. (2007). Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: Meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Research, 16(6), 675–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, S. B., & Sandøe, P. (2000). Bioethics: Limits to the interference with life. Animal Reproduction Science, 60, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericksen, P. (2014). Vulnerability of food security to global change. In B. Freedman (Ed.), Global environmental change (pp. 677–680). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiester, A. (2008). Justifying a presumption of restraint in animal biotechnology research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(6), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Fraser, D. (2008). Welfare standards associated with intensive production systems being introduced to meet increased demand. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(4), 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GO-Science. (2011). Foresight. The future of food and farming. Final project report. The Government Office for Science: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunzmann, P. (2010). Biotechnology, battery farming and animal dignity. In F. T. Gottwald (Ed.), Food ethics (pp. 101–116). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Laible, G., & Alonso-González, L. (2009). Gene targeting from laboratory to livestock: Current status and emerging concepts. Biotechnology Journal, 4(9), 1278–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, J., Gjerris, M., & Sandøe, P. (2006). After Dolly—ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology, 65(5), 992–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnaughten, P. (2004). Animals in their nature. A case study on public attitudes to animals, GM and ‘nature’. Sociology, 38(3), 533–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C. (2001). Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports, 2(7), 545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menozzi, D., Mora, C., & Merigo, A. (2012). Genetically modified salmon for dinner? Transgenic salmon marketing scenarios. AgBioForum, 15(3), 276–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Palmer, C. (2011). Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: A response to Thompson. NanoEthics, 5(1), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascalev, A. K. (2006). We and they: Animal welfare in the era of advanced agricultural biotechnology. Livestock Science, 103(3), 208–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, R., Toogood, M. D., & Knierim, A. (2006). Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis, 46, 318–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbült, P., de Vries, N. K., Dreezens, E., & Martijn, C. (2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45(1), 47–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (2008). The opposite of human enhancement: Nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. Nanoethics, 2(3), 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H. (2003). Naturalness and the GM of animals. Trends in Biotechnology, 21(7), 294–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weckert, J. (2012). Symposium on animal disenhancement: Introduction. Nanoethics, 6(1), 39–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J. E. (2005). Advances in livestock genomics: Opening the barn door. Genome Research, 15(12), 1699–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from Genome Alberta (Grant No SFR 3374) “Application of genomics to improving swine health and welfare” and (Grant No SFR2374) “Whole genome selection though genome imputation of beef cattle”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Food and Society Group, SAFRD, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

    David Coles & Lynn J. Frewer

  2. Centre for Professional Ethics, UCLAN School of Health, Brook 317, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK

    David Coles

  3. Agricultural Marketing and Business, Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta, 515 General Services Building, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H1, Canada

    Ellen Goddard

Authors
  1. David Coles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynn J. Frewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ellen Goddard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynn J. Frewer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coles, D., Frewer, L.J. & Goddard, E. Ethical Issues and Potential Stakeholder Priorities Associated with the Application of Genomic Technologies Applied to Animal Production Systems. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 231–253 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9529-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9529-z

Keywords

search

Navigation