Public Perceptions Regarding Genomic Technologies Applied to Breeding Farm Animals: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

The societal acceptability of different applications of genomic technologies to animal production systems will determine whether their innovation trajectories will reach the commercialisation stage. Importantly, technological implementation and commercialisation trajectories, regulation, and policy development need to take account of public priorities and attitudes. More effective co-production practices will ensure the application of genomic technologies to animals aligns with public priorities and are acceptable to society. Consumer rejection of, and limited demand for, animal products developed using novel genomic technologies will determine whether they are integration into the food system. However, little is known about whether genomic technologies that accelerate breeding but do not introduce cross-species genetic changes are more acceptable to consumers than those that do. Five focus groups, held in the north east of England, were used to explore the perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the use of genomic technologies in breeding farm animals for the human food supply chain. Overall, study participants were more positive towards genomic technologies applied to promote animal welfare (e.g., improved disease resistance), environmental sustainability, and human health. Animal “disenhancement” was viewed negatively and increased food production alone was not perceived as a potential benefit. In comparison to gene editing, research participants were most negative about genetic modification and the application of gene drives, independent of the benefits delivered.

Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology

“…Participants also approached the question from ethical and regulatory perspectives often weighing benefits and risks or defining their expectations regarding appropriate technology use. These findings are similar to those from previous research, including concerns about animal welfare, ethical considerations and uncertainty about the technology and how to control it [ 29 , 33 ], as well as weighing benefits and risks and trustworthiness of the technology [ 31 ]. Earlier work has reported concerns with unknown long-term consequences and acknowledged that the technology may benefit farmers, consumers, and others [ 62 ].…”

“…Among other measures, [ 25 ] found that participants were more supportive of GE applications targeting disease resistance in plants than in animals, and both applications were more supported than those intended to improve quality or quantity of products. Thus, GE applications seem to be more acceptable when they are used to address issues of public good and less acceptable when they are perceived to primarily benefit private actors, for example improving farm profit by increased production [ 33 ].…”

Public attitudes toward the use of technology to create new types of animals and animal products

“…Seen in this light, framing arguments about technology only around alleviating suffering associated with current production methods may be insufficient, as this side-steps a broader discussion of rearing systems and the morality of those responsible for these systems. Previous studies examining attitudes to genetic modification of farm animals often do not offer options beyond acceptance of either the technology or the status quo (McConnachie et al 2019 ; Ritter et al 2019 ; Yunes et al 2019 ; Ly et al 2021 ; Naab et al 2021 ); to our knowledge, no study to date has specifically examined the rejection of the existing response options as a theme in participant qualitative responses. The qualitative responses from participants in this study suggest the need to include other options in discussions around new technologies related to the production of animal products, including new ways of raising animals for food and non-animal alternatives.…”

“…A study on the acceptability of genetic technologies applied to agricultural animals found support for applications that enhanced animal welfare (e.g. via increased disease resistance), but not for applications that simply increased food production (Naab et al 2021 ). In addition, people appear to be more accepting when they believe that the suggested intervention is a viable solution and that alternatives are not as likely to succeed in achieving the desired end (Schultz-Bergin 2014 ).…”

Using animal history to inform current debates in gene editing farm animals: A systematic review

“…Profit motives have influenced the selection of production traits since the Imperial State Period, and people have disputed this emphasis since the Welfare State Period (Saucier and Parsons, 2014;Sayer, 2013;Smith-Howard, 2017b). Given those contentions, we should anticipate that biotechnologies seen to primarily provide production benefits to private actors, such as gene editing for the double muscle trait (more meat on the animal) or docility trait (less stress hormones during slaughtering), will generally have the lowest public approval (Bratlie et al, 2020;Ankeny et al, 2021;Naab et al, 2021;Busch et al, 2022). Animal history matters in these debates because historical approaches can help identify power structures in the past for understanding current (and future) selection pressures.…”