IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p4966-d545498.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Cristina Yunes

    (Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88034-001, Brazil)

  • Zimbábwe Osório-Santos

    (Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88034-001, Brazil)

  • Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk

    (Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada)

  • Maria José Hötzel

    (Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88034-001, Brazil)

Abstract

Integrating technology into agricultural systems has gained considerable traction, particularly over the last half century. Agricultural systems that incorporate the public’s concerns regarding farm animal welfare are more likely to be socially accepted in the long term, a key but often forgotten component of sustainability. Gene editing is a tool that has received considerable attention in the last five years, given its potential capacity to improve farm animal health, welfare, and production efficiency. This study aimed to explore the attitudes of Brazilian citizens regarding the applications of gene editing in cattle that generate offspring without horns; are more resistant to heat; and have increased muscle tissue. Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed participants via face-to-face, using in-depth interviews (Study 1) and an online questionnaire containing closed-ended questions (Study 2). Overall, the acceptability of gene editing was low and in cases where support was given it was highly dependent on the type and purpose of the application proposed. Using gene editing to improve muscle tissue growth was viewed as less acceptable compared to using gene editing to reduce heat stress or to produce hornless cattle. Support declined when the application was perceived to harm animal welfare, to be profit motivated or to reinforce the status quo of intensive livestock systems. The acceptability of gene editing was reduced when perceptions of risks and benefits were viewed as unevenly or unfairly distributed among consumers, corporations, different types of farmers, and the animals. Interviewees did not consider gene editing a “natural” process, citing dissenting reasons such as the high degree of human interference and the acceleration of natural processes. Our findings raised several issues that may need to be addressed for gene editing to comply with the social pillar of sustainable agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Cristina Yunes & Zimbábwe Osório-Santos & Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk & Maria José Hötzel, 2021. "Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4966-:d:545498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4966/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4966/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harvey, David & Hubbard, Carmen, 2013. "Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-114.
    2. Markus Milne & Rob Gray, 2013. "W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 13-29, November.
    3. Stephan S. Marette & Anne-Célia Disdier & John C Beghin, 2020. "A Comparison of EU and US consumers' willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples," PSE Working Papers halshs-02872222, HAL.
    4. Paul T E Cusack, 2020. "On Pain," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 31(3), pages 24253-24254, October.
    5. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    6. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2010. "Drivers of Resident Support for Animal Care Oriented Ballot Initiatives," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 419-428, August.
    7. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    8. Stephan Marette & Anne-Célia Disdier & John Beghin, 2020. "A Comparison of EU and US consumers' willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples," PSE Working Papers halshs-02872222, HAL.
    9. Sydney E. Scott & Paul Rozin, 2020. "Actually, natural is neutral," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 989-990, October.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:91-97 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lucy Mallinson & Jean Russell & Duncan D. Cameron & Jurriaan Ton & Peter Horton & Margo E. Barker, 2018. "Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(5), pages 1145-1161, October.
    12. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.
    13. Philip M. Fernbach & Nicholas Light & Sydney E. Scott & Yoel Inbar & Paul Rozin, 2019. "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 251-256, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hannah Winther & Torill Blix & Lotte Holm & Anne Ingeborg Myhr & Bjørn Myskja, 2024. "A social and ethical game-changer? An empirical ethics study of CRISPR in the salmon farming industry," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(5), pages 476-494, October.
    2. Javier Gutiérrez & Javier Velázquez & Jacobo Rodríguez & Ana Hernando & Inmaculada Gómez & Fernando Herráez & Aida López-Sánchez, 2021. "Livestock Trails as Keystone Structural Connectors for Pastureland Analysis Based on Remote Sensing and Structural Connectivity Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Richard Lynch & Maeve Henchion & John J. Hyland & José A. Gutiérrez, 2022. "Creating a Rainbow for Sustainability: The Case of Sustainable Beef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(2).
    3. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    4. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    5. Bindu Paudel & Deepthi E. Kolady & David Just & Evert Van der Sluis, 2023. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of gene‐edited foods and its implications for innovators and policymakers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 623-645, July.
    6. Paudel, Bindu & Kolady, Deepthi Elizabeth & Just, David R. & Van Der Sluis, Evert, 2021. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of genetically modified and gene-edited foods: Market and policy implications," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313905, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. J. Ross Pruitt & Kaitlyn M. Melton & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Does Physical Activity Influence Consumer Acceptance of Gene Edited Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    8. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    9. Jones, Michael S. & Brown, Zachary S., 2023. "Food for thought: Assessing the consumer welfare impacts of deploying irreversible, landscape-scale biotechnologies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    10. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    12. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    13. Alexandre Magnier & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Jayson Lusk, 2022. "Changes in Consumer Preferences toward Non‐GM Foods within an Information‐Rich Environment: The Case of the Washington State Ballot Initiative," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 489-510, March.
    14. Paweł Bryła, 2021. "The Impact of Consumer Schwartz Values and Regulatory Focus on the Willingness to Pay a Price Premium for Domestic Food Products: Gender Differences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, September.
    15. repec:ags:aaea22:335499 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Fábio Albuquerque & Ana Isabel Dias & Alexandra Domingos, 2023. "The Students’ Intrinsic Motivation for Learning Non-Financial Information Matters from Their Self-Identification as Global Citizens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    17. Bianca Alves Almeida Machado & Lívia Cristina Pinto Dias & Alberto Fonseca, 2021. "Transparency of materiality analysis in GRI‐based sustainability reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 570-580, March.
    18. Merriam Haffar & Cory Searcy, 2018. "Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1079-1092, November.
    19. Daniel Niederer & Juliane Mueller, 2020. "Sustainability effects of motor control stabilisation exercises on pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-21, January.
    20. Sana Sadiq & Khadija Anasse & Najib Slimani, 2022. "The impact of mobile phones on high school students: connecting the research dots," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 30(1), pages 252-270, April.
    21. Jitka Vseteckova, 2020. "Psychological Therapy for ICT Literate Older Adults in the Time of COVID-19 - Perceptions on the Acceptability of Online Versus Face to Face Versions of a Mindfulness for Later Life Group," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 31(1), pages 23912-23916, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4966-:d:545498. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.