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

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：David Coles (1) (2)
  Lynn J. Frewer (1)
  Ellen Goddard (3)
  
  1. Food and Society Group ; SAFRD ; Newcastle University ; Newcastle Upon Tyne ; NE1 7RU ; UK
  2. Centre for Professional Ethics ; UCLAN School of Health ; Brook 317 ; Preston ; PR1 2HE ; UK
  3. Agricultural Marketing and Business ; Faculty of Agricultural ; Life and Environmental Sciences ; University of Alberta ; 515 General Services Building ; Edmonton ; AB ; T6G 2H1 ; Canada
  
• 关键词：Genomic technology ; Genetic modification ; Animal production ; Ethical matrix ; Stakeholder
• 刊名：Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：April 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：28
• 期：2
• 页码：231-253
• 全文大小：229 KB
• 参考文献：1. Berry, DP, Wall, E, Pryce, JE (2014) Genetics and genomics of reproductive performance in dairy and beef cattle. Animal 8: pp. 105-121 CrossRef
  2. Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M, Veissier, I (2003) Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: pp. 445-455
  3. Boland, MJ, Rae, AN, Vereijken, JM, Meuwissen, MP, Fischer, AR, Boekel, MA (2013) The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends in Food Science and Technology 29: pp. 62-73 CrossRef
  4. Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Perny, P (2009) Overall assessment of animal welfare: Strategy adopted in welfare quality. Animal Welfare 18: pp. 363-370
  5. Bredahl, L (1999) Consumers鈥?cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite 33: pp. 343-360 CrossRef
  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: pp. 66-90 CrossRef
  7. Chan, S (2009) Should we enhance animals?. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: pp. 678-683 CrossRef
  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: pp. 484 CrossRef
  9. Chao, A, Thun, MJ, Connell, CJ, McCullough, ML, Jacobs, EJ, Flanders, WD (2005) Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 293: pp. 172-182 CrossRef
  10. Chapotin, SM, Wolt, JD (2007) Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: Meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Research 16: pp. 675-688 CrossRef
  11. Christiansen, SB, Sand酶e, P (2000) Bioethics: Limits to the interference with life. Animal Reproduction Science 60: pp. 15-29 CrossRef
  12. Coles, D, Frewer, LJ (2013) Nanotechnology applied to European food production: A review of ethical and regulatory issues. Trends in Food Science and Technology 34: pp. 32-43 CrossRef
  13. Costa-Font, M, Gil, JM, Traill, WB (2008) Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33: pp. 99-111 CrossRef
  14. Daniel, CR, Cross, AJ, Koebnick, C, Sinha, R (2011) Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutrition 14: pp. 575-583 CrossRef
  15. Ericksen, P Vulnerability of food security to global change. In: Freedman, B eds. (2014) Global environmental change. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 677-680 CrossRef
  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: pp. 65-76 CrossRef
  17. Fiester, A (2008) Justifying a presumption of restraint in animal biotechnology research. American Journal of Bioethics 8: pp. 36-44 CrossRef
  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: pp. 330-339 CrossRef
  20. Frewer, LJ, Coles, D, Houdebine, LM, Kleter, GA (2014) Attitudes towards genetically modified animals in food production. British Food Journal 116: pp. 1291-1313 CrossRef
  21. Frewer, LJ, Kleter, GA, Brennan, M, Coles, D, Fischer, ARH, Houdebine, LM (2013) Genetically modified animals from life-science, socio-economic and ethical perspectives: Examining issues in an EU policy context. New Biotechnology 30: pp. 447-460 CrossRef
  22. Frewer, LJ, Lans, IA, Fischer, AR, Reinders, MJ, Menozzi, D, Zhang, X (2013) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification (GM). A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science and Technology 30: pp. 142-152 CrossRef
  23. Fuller, F, Tuan, F, Wailes, E (2002) Rising demand for meat: Who will feed China鈥檚 hogs? China鈥檚 food and agricultural: Issues for the 21st Century. USDA, Washington
  24. Gao, YU, Zhang, R, Hu, X, Li, N (2007) Application of genomic technologies to the improvement of meat quality of farm animals. Meat Science 77: pp. 36-45 CrossRef
  25. Godfray, HCJ, Beddington, JR, Crute, IR, Haddad, L, Lawrence, D, Muir, JF (2010) Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: pp. 812-818 CrossRef
  26. Godfray, HCJ, Garnett, T (2014) Food security and sustainable intensification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369: pp. 0273-2012 CrossRef
  Foresight. The future of food and farming. Final project report. London, The Government Office for Science
  27. Hocking, PM (1994) Assessment of the welfare of food restricted male broiler breeder poultry with musculoskeletal disease. Research in Veterinary Science 57: pp. 28-34 CrossRef
  28. Hubbard, C, Scott, K (2011) Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare?. Animal Welfare 20: pp. 79-87
  29. Kaiser, M (2005) Assessing ethics and animal welfare in animal biotechnology for farm production. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties 24: pp. 75
  30. 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: pp. 65-80 CrossRef
  31. Kim, KS, Larsen, N, Short, T, Plastow, G, Rothschild, MF (2000) A missense variant of the porcine melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) gene is associated with fatness, growth, and feed intake traits. Mammalian Genome 11: pp. 131-135 CrossRef
  32. Kunzmann, P Biotechnology, battery farming and animal dignity. In: Gottwald, FT eds. (2010) Food ethics. Springer, New York, pp. 101-116 CrossRef
  33. Laible, G, Alonso-Gonz谩lez, L (2009) Gene targeting from laboratory to livestock: Current status and emerging concepts. Biotechnology Journal 4: pp. 1278-1292 CrossRef
  34. Lassen, J, Gjerris, M, Sand酶e, P (2006) After Dolly鈥攅thical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology 65: pp. 992-1004 CrossRef
  35. Lutsey, PL, Steffen, LM, Stevens, J (2008) Dietary intake and the development of the metabolic syndrome. The atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Circulation 117: pp. 754-761 CrossRef
  36. Macnaughten, P (2004) Animals in their nature. A case study on public attitudes to animals, GM and 鈥榥ature鈥? Sociology 38: pp. 533-551 CrossRef
  37. Marris, C (2001) Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports 2: pp. 545 CrossRef
  38. Menozzi, D, Mora, C, Merigo, A (2012) Genetically modified salmon for dinner?. Transgenic salmon marketing scenarios. AgBioForum 15: pp. 276-293
  39. Mepham, B (2000) A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: pp. 165-176 CrossRef
  40. Mora, C, Menozzi, D, Kleter, G, Aramyan, LH, Valeeva, NI, Reddy, GP (2012) Factors affecting the adoption of genetically modified animals in the food and pharmaceutical chains. Bio-based and Applied Economics 1: pp. 313-329
  41. Novoselova, TA, Meuwissen, MP, Huirne, R (2007) Adoption of GM technology in livestock production chains: an integrating framework. Trends in Food Science and Technology 18: pp. 175-188 CrossRef
  42. Oltenacu, PA, Broom, DM (2010) The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare 19: pp. 39-49
  43. Palmer, C (2011) Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: A response to Thompson. NanoEthics 5: pp. 43-48 CrossRef
  44. Pascalev, AK (2006) We and they: Animal welfare in the era of advanced agricultural biotechnology. Livestock Science 103: pp. 208-220 CrossRef
  45. Popkin, BM, Adair, LS, Ng, SW (2012) Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews 70: pp. 3-21 CrossRef
  46. Rothschild, MF (2004) Porcine genomics delivers new tools and results: This little piggy did more than just go to market. Genetical Research 83: pp. 1-6 CrossRef
  47. Rothschild, MF, Plastow, GS (2008) Impact of genomics on animal agriculture and opportunities for animal health. Trends in Biotechnology 26: pp. 21-25 CrossRef
  48. Schenk, MF, Marinus, P, Maas, M, Smulders, JM, Gilissen, LJWJ, Fischer, ARH (2011) Consumer attitudes towards hypoallergenic apples that alleviate mild apple allergy. Food Quality and Preference 22: pp. 83-91 CrossRef
  49. Scott, ME, Nolan, A, Fitzpatrick, JL (2001) Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: A framework for measurement, Section A, Animal science supplement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 30: pp. 5-10 CrossRef
  50. Siebert, R, Toogood, MD, Knierim, A (2006) Factors affecting European farmers鈥?participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46: pp. 318-340 CrossRef
  51. Tenb眉lt, P, Vries, NK, Dreezens, E, Martijn, C (2005) Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45: pp. 47-50 CrossRef
  52. Thompson, P (2008) The opposite of human enhancement: Nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. Nanoethics 2: pp. 305-316 CrossRef
  53. Heuvel, T, Renes, RJ, Gremmen, B, Woerkum, C, Trijp, H (2008) Consumers鈥?images regarding genomics as a tomato breeding technology:鈥渕aybe it can provide a more tasty tomato鈥? Euphytica 159: pp. 207-216 CrossRef
  54. Tassell, CP, Smith, TP, Matukumalli, LK, Taylor, JF, Schnabel, RD, Lawley, CT (2008) SNP discovery and allele frequency estimation by deep sequencing of reduced representation libraries. Nature Methods 5: pp. 247-252 CrossRef
  55. Verhoog, H (2003) Naturalness and the GM of animals. Trends in Biotechnology 21: pp. 294-297 CrossRef
  56. Wang, Y, Beydoun, MA (2009) Meat consumption is associated with obesity and central obesity among US adults. International Journal of Obesity 33: pp. 621-628 CrossRef
  57. Warkentin, T Dis/integrating animals: Ethical dimensions of the genetic engineering of animals for human consumption. In: Gigliotti, C eds. (2009) Leonardo鈥檚 choice. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 151-171 CrossRef
  58. Weckert, J (2012) Symposium on animal disenhancement: Introduction. Nanoethics 6: pp. 39-40 CrossRef
  59. Womack, JE (2005) Advances in livestock genomics: Opening the barn door. Genome Research 15: pp. 1699-1705 CrossRef
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Philosophy
  Ethics
  Evolutionary Biology
  Agricultural Economics
  Theory of Medicine and Bioethics
  Plant Sciences
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-322X

文摘

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.