Genetically modified animals from life-science, socio-economic and ethical perspectives: Examining issues in an EU policy context

New Biotechnology

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 447-460

  Frewer, L J ^a   Kleter, G A ^b   Brennan, M ^a   Coles, D ^a   Fischer, A R H ^b   Houdebine, L M ^c   Mora, C ^d   Millar, K ^e   Salter, B ^f  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PARMA   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^f KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL PRODUCTION; ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE; ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES; GENETICALLY MODIFIED; PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS; PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR; POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS; SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION;

ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC POLICY; RISK PERCEPTION; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANIMALS;

LACTOFERRIN; RECOMBINANT DNA;

ANIMAL HEALTH; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTIFICIAL MILK; BIOMEDICINE; DNA MODIFICATION; DNA TRANSFER; DRUG INDUSTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ETHICS; FOOD INDUSTRY; NONHUMAN; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; TRANSGENIC ANIMAL; TRANSGENIC CATTLE;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; ANIMALS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; BIOETHICAL ISSUES; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; NUTRITION POLICY; POLICY MAKING;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84880179326     PISSN: 18716784     EISSN: 18764347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nbt.2013.03.010     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., Rowe G., Pidgeon N., Poortinga W., Murdock G., et al. The GM debate: risk, politics and public engagement 2007, Routledge, Oxon.
2. Frewer L., Lassen J., Kettlitz B., Scholderer J., Beekman V., Berdal K.G. Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2004, 42(7):1181-1193. 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002.
3. Knight A.J. Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process. Public Understanding of Science 2009, 18(2):177-188. 10.1177/0963662507079375.
4. Pivetti M. Natural and unnatural: activists' representations of animal biotechnology. New Genetics and Society 2007, 26(2):137-157. 10.1080/14636770701466840.
5. Kleter G.A., Kok E. Safety assessment of biotechnology used in animal production, including genetically modified (GM) feed and GM animals - a review. Animal Science Papers and Reports 2010, 28(2):105-114. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.ighz.edu.pl/files/objects/2853/64/strona105-114.pdf.
6. Houdebine L.M. Production of pharmaceutical proteins by transgenic animals. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 2009, 32(2):107-121. 10.1016/j.cimid.2007.11.005.
7. Kling J. First US approval for a transgenic animal drug. Nature Biotechnology 2009, 27(4):302-304. 10.1038/nbt0409-302.
8. Vàzquez-Salat N., Salter B., Smets G., Houdebine L.M. The current state of GMO governance: are we ready for GM animals?. Biotechnology Advances 2012, 30(6):1336-1343.
9. Houdebine L.M. Production of human polyclonal antibodies by transgenic animals. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology 2011, 2(3):138-141. 10.4236/abb.2011.23022.
10. Frewer L.J., van der Lans I.A., Fischer A.R.H., Reinders M.J., Menozzi D., Zhang X., et al. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2013, 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003.
11. Frewer L.J., Coles D., Houdebine L.M., Kleter G.A. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetically modified animals - a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2013, 30(2):142-152. 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003.
12. Laible G. Enhancing livestock through genetic engineering - recent advances and future prospects. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 2009, 32(2):123-137. 10.1016/j.cimid.2007.11.012.
13. Lusk J.L., Jamal M., Kurlander L., Roucan M., Taulman L. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2005, 30(1):28-44. http://purl.umn.edu/30782.
14. Moon Chapotin S., Wolt J.D. Genetically modified crops for bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Research 2007, 16(6):675-688. 10.1007/s11248-007-9122-y.
15. Vàzquez-Salat N., Salter B., Smets G., Houdebine L.M. The current state of GMO governance: are we ready for GM animals?. Biotechnology Advances 2012, 30(6):1336-1343. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.006.
16. Howard T.H., Homan E.J., Bremel RD Transgenic livestock: regulation and science in a changing environment. Journal of Animal Science 2001, 79(E-Suppl.):E1-E11. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/79/E-Suppl/E1.
17. International Aspects of Agricultural Policy Directorate-general for agricultural and rural development 2012, European Commission, Brussels, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/trade-analysis/international-aspects-of-agricultural-policy_en.pdf.
18. Frewer L.J., Bergmann K., Brennan M., Lion R., Meertens R., Rowe G., et al. Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2011, 22(8):442-456. 10.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005.
19. Gupta N., Fischer A.R.H., Frewer L.J. Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Understanding of Science 2012, 21(7):782-795. 10.1177/0963662510392485.
20. Nelson G., Babinard J., Josling T. The domestic and regional regulatory environment. Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: economics and politics 2001, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. G. Nelson (Ed.).
21. Andree P. The biopolitics of genetically modified organisms in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies - Revue D Etudes Canadiennes 2002, 37(3):162-191.
22. Carter C.A., Gruere G.P. Mandatory labeling of genetically modified food: does it really provide consumer choice?. AgBioForum 2003, 6(1/2):68-70.
23. Knight J.G., Holdsworth D.K., Mather D.W. GM food and neophobia: connecting with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2008, 88(5):739-744.
24. Paarlberg R.L. The real threat to GM crops in poor countries: consumer and policy resistance to GM foods in rich countries. Food Policy 2002, 27(3):247-250. 10.1016/s0306-9192(02)00014-3.
25. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (amended version). Official Journal of the European Union 2008, L18:1-60. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001L0018:20080321:EN:PDF.
26. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment Law tightened on cloning and human cell lines 2007, Wellington, Ministry for the Environment, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/organisms/law-changes/cloning.html.
27. Cowan T. Biotechnology in animal agriculture: status and current issues (CRS Report RL33334) 2010, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://crs.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Oct/RL33334.pdf.
28. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Mid Term Review of the Strategy on Life Sciences and Biotechnology {SEC(2007)441}, COM(2007) 175 final 2007, European Commission, Brussels, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0175:FIN:EN:PDF.
29. Gottlieb S., Wheeler M.B. Genetically engineered animals and public health compelling benefits for health care, nutrition, the environment, and animal welfare 2011, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Washington, DC, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www3.bio.org/foodag/2011_ge%20animal_benefits_report.pdf.
30. National Biotechnology Development Strategy 2007, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/nbds_india.pdf.
31. Statement of the World Farmers Organization on Biotechnology in the Livestock Sector and Animal Welfare 2011, World Farmers' Organization, Rome, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://worldfarmersorganisation.com/img/user/files/Policy%20Documents/Statement%20of%20the%20World%20Farmers%20Organisation%20on%20biotecnology%20in%20livestock%20and%20animal%20welfare.doc.
32. Guidance on the risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified animals and on animal health and welfare aspects. EFSA Journal 2012, 10(1):2501. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2501.pdf, 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2501.
33. FDA releases final guidance on genetically engineered animals. FDA Veterinarian 2008, 23(4):1. [Accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/FDAVeterinarianNewsletter/UCM109289.pdf.
34. Guidance for industry (#187): regulation of genetically engineered animals containing heritable recombinant DNA constructs 2011, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceCompliance%20Enforcement/Guidance%20for%20Industry/UCM113903.pdf.
35. Kaiser M. Assessing ethics and animal welfare in animal biotechnology for farm production. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 2005, 24(1):75-87. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://web.oie.int/boutique/extrait/07kaiser7588.pdf.
36. Hoban T.J. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: an international perspective. Nature Biotechnology 1997, 15(3):232-234. 10.1038/nbt0397-232.
37. Houdebine J.M., Jolivet G. Generation and use of genetically modified animals: a technical overview (PEGASUS Project Deliverable 2.1) 2011, National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), Jouy-en-Josas.
38. Prather R.S., Shen M., Dai Y. Genetically modified pigs for medicine and agriculture. Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering Reviews 2008, 25(1):245-265. 10.5661/bger-25-203.
39. Klymiuk N., Aigner B., Brem G., Wolf E. Genetic modification of pigs as organ donors for xenotransplantation. Molecular Reproduction and Development 2010, 77(3):209-221. 10.1002/mrd.21127.
40. Maclean N. Genetically modified fish and their effects on food quality and human health and nutrition. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2003, 14(5-8):242-252. 10.1016/S0924-2244(03)00070-0.
41. Lock A.L., Bauman D.E. Modifying milk fat composition of dairy cows to enhance fatty acids beneficial to human health. Lipids 2004, 39(12):1197-1206. 10.1007/s11745-004-1348-6.
42. Lyall J., Irvine R.M., Sherman A., McKinley T.J., Núñez A., Purdie A., et al. Suppression of avian influenza transmission in genetically modified chickens. Science 2011, 331(6014):223-226. 10.1126/science.1198020.
43. Ono E., Amagai K., Taharaguchi S., Tomioka Y., Yoshino S., Watanabe Y., et al. Transgenic mice expressing a soluble form of porcine nectin-1/herpesvirus entry mediator C as a model for pseudorabies-resistant livestock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2004, 101(46):16150-16155. 10.1073/pnas.0405816101.
44. Daniel-Carlier N., Sawafta A., Passet B., Thépot D., Leroux-Coyau M., Lefèvre F., et al. Viral infection resistance conferred on mice by siRNA transgenesis. Transgenic Research 2012, 1-12. 10.1007/s11248-012-9649-4.
45. Muysson D.J., Verrinder Gibbins A.M. The alteration of milk content by genetic engineering and recombinant DNA-mediated selection techniques. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 1989, 69(3):517-527. 10.4141/cjas89-064.
46. National Research Council Animal biotechnology: science based concerns 1989 2002, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10418%26page=1.
47. Yang P., Wang J., Gong G., Sun X., Zhang R., Du Z., et al. Cattle mammary bioreactor generated by a novel procedure of transgenic cloning for large-scale production of functional human lactoferrin. PLoS ONE 2008, 3(10):e3453. 10.1371/journal.pone.0003453.
48. Brundige D.R., Maga E.A., Klasing K.C., Murray J.D. Consumption of pasteurized human lysozyme transgenic goats' milk alters serum metabolite profile in young pigs. Transgenic Research 2010, 19(4):563-574. 10.1007/s11248-009-9334-4.
49. Lai L., Kang J.X., Li R., Wang J., Witt W.T., Yong H.Y., et al. Generation of cloned transgenic pigs rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Nature Biotechnology 2006, 24(4):435-436. 10.1038/nbt1198.
50. Moura R.R., Melo L.M., de Figueirêdo Freitas V.J. Production of recombinant proteins in milk of transgenic and non-transgenic goats. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 2011, 54(5):927-938. 10.1590/S1516-89132011000500010.
51. Scientific opinion of the Scientific Committee on food safety, animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from cloning by somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) and their offspring and products obtained from those animals (Question No EFSA-Q-2007-092). EFSA Journal 2008, 767:1-49. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/767.pdf.
52. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified animals. EFSA Journal; in press, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/120621.htm.
53. ® Stakeholder Conference 2007, Project Office Welfare Quality®, Lelystad, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.welfarequality.net/downloadattachment/36059/19616/proceedings%202nd%20wq%20stakeholder%20conference%203-4%20may%202007.pdf.
54. Ferrer-Miralles N., Domingo- Espín J., Corchero J.L., Vázquez E., Villaverde A. Microbial factories for recombinant pharmaceuticals. Microbial Cell Factories 2009, 8:17. 10.1186/1475-2859-8-17.
55. König A., Kuiper H.A., Marvin H.J.P., Boon P.E., Busk L., Cnudde F., et al. The SAFE FOODS framework for improved risk analysis of foods. Food Control 2010, 21(12):1566-1587. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.02.012.
56. Van Eenennaam A.L., Muir W.M. Transgenic salmon: a final leap to the grocery shelf?. Nature Biotechnology 2011, 29(8):706-710. 10.1038/nbt.1938.
57. Thayer A. Transgenics firms struggle to keep going. Chemical & Engineering News 2012, 90(36):34-38. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i36/Transgenics-Firms-Struggle-Keep.html.
58. Mora C., Menozzi D., Aramyan L.H., Valeeva N.I., Pakki Reddy G., Merigo A., et al. The economics of genetically modified animal applications in food and pharmaceutical chains. Report on production chain context (PEGASUS Project Deliverable 3.1) PEGASUS Project 2011, University of Parma, Parma. http://www.pegasus.wur.nl/UK/.
59. Caswell M.F., Fuglie K.O., Klotz C.A. Agricultural biotechnology an economic perspective 2003, Novinka (Nova Science), New York, NY.
60. Kaye-Blake W., Saunders C., Ferguson L. Preliminary economic evaluation of biopharming in New Zealand. Research Report 296 2007, Agribusiness and Economics Unit, Lincoln University, Christchurch, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/Documents/3050_RR296_s8982.pdf.
61. Melo E.O., Canavessi A.M.O., Franco M.M., Rumpf R. Animal transgenisis: state of the art and applications. Journal of Applied Genetics 2007, 48(1):47-61. 10.1007/BF03194657.
62. Postma T.J.B.M., Liebl F. How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2005, 72:161-173. 10.1016/j.techfore.2003.11.005.
63. Propp T, Rip A. Assessment tools for the management of new and emerging science and technology: state-of-the-art and research gaps (TA NanoNed Working Paper No. 1). Utrecht: NanoNed; 2006. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.nanoned.nl/downloads/downloads/Paper_1.pdf.
64. Mora C., Menozzi D., Kleter G., Aramyan L.H., Valeeva N.I., Zimmermann K.L., et al. Factors affecting the adoption of genetically modified animals in the food and pharmaceutical chains. Bio-based and Applied Economics 2012, 1(3):313-329.
65. Millar K, Kaiser M, Bremer S. Examining the social and ethical issues raised by genetically modified animals: report of the stakeholder workshop, 1 Tubingen 4/15 June 2011. Pegasus deliverable 5.1a. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham; 2012 [This has 2 dates related to it 2011 and 2012].
66. Millar K, Kaiser M, Bremer S. Examining the social and ethical issues raised by genetically modified animals: report of the stakeholder workshop, vols. 14/15 June 2011. Pegasus deliverable 5.1b. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham; 2012 [This has 2 dates related to it 2011 and 2012].
67. Millar K, Kaiser M, Bremer S. Examining the social and ethical issues raised by genetically modified animals: report of the stakeholder workshop. Edinburgh, 30 June 2011. Pegasus deliverable 5.1c. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham; 2012 [This has 2 dates related to it 2011 and 2012].
68. Millar K, Kaiser M, Bremer S. Examining the social and ethical issues raised by genetically modified animals: report of the stakeholder workshop. Brussels, 16 September 2011, Pegasus deliverable 5.1d. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham; 2012 [This has 2 dates related to it 2011 and 2012].
69. Mepham B., Kaiser M., Thorstensen E., Tomkins S., Millar K. Ethical matrix manual 2006, Agricultural Economics Institute (LEI), The Hague, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://edepot.wur.nl/216589.
70. Beekman V., Brom F.W.A. Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberations about the ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2007, 20(1):3-12.
71. Kaiser M., Millar K., Thorstensen E., Tomkins S. Developing the ethical matrix as a decision support framework: GM fish as a case study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2007, 20(1):65-80.
72. Genetically Modified Animals 2011, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/gmotopics/topic/gmanimals.html.
73. AquAdvantage Salmon: Briefing Packet Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee 2010, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinayMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf.
74. Wright N, Bremer S, Kaiser M, Millar K. Examining the social and ethical issues raised by genetically modified animals: report of the policy workshop. PEGASUS Project Report. University of Nottingham/University of Bergen, Nottingham/Bergen; 2012.
75. Smith G., Wales C. The theory and practice of citizens' juries. Policy & Politics 1999, 27(3):295-308. 10.1332/030557399782453118.
76. Hagendijk R., Irwin A. Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary. Europe Minerva 2006, 44(2):167-184. 10.1007/s11024-006-0012-x.
77. Rowe G., Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., Pidgeon N. Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science 2005, 14(4):331-352. 10.1177/0963662505056611.
78. Einsiedel E.F., Ross H. Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation. Science and Engineering Ethics 2002, 8(4):579-591. 10.1007/s11948-002-0010-9.
79. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technology & Human Values 2005, 30(2):251-290. 10.1177/0162243904271724.
80. Powell M.C., Colin M. Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology. What would it really take?. Science Communication 2008, 30(1):126-136. 10.1177/1075547008320520.
81. Brennan M., Raley M., Mora C., Menozzi D., Sogari G., Emery S. The Pegasus citizen juries commentary report (PEGASUS Project Deliverable 7.1&7.2) PEGASUS Project 2012, University of Newcastle, Newcastle. http://www.pegasus.wur.nl/UK/.
82. Carson L. Improving public deliberative practice: a comparative analysis of two Italian citizens' jury projects in 2006. Journal of Public Deliberation 2006, 2(1):12.
83. Agriculture negotiations backgrounder; update phase 2: consumer information and labelling 2002, World Trade Organisation, Geneva, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd26_ph2consumer_e.htm.
84. Thinking big for small businesses: what the EU does for SMEs 2011, Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry, European Commission, Brussels, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/thinking_big_en.pdf.
85. Kushnir K., Mirmulstein M.L., Ramalho R. Micro, small, and medium enterprises around the world: how many are there, and what affects the count? 2010, World Bank and International Finance Corporation, Washington, DC, [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/9ae1dd80495860d6a482b519583b6d16/MSME-CI-AnalysisNote.pdf%3FMOD=AJPERES%26CACHEID=9ae1dd80495860d6a482b519583b6d16.
86. Menozzi D., Mora C., Merigo A. Genetically modified salmon for dinner? Transgenic salmon marketing scenarios. AgBbioFforum 2012, 15(3):276-293.
87. Flecknell P. Replacement: reduction and refinement. ALTEX - Altern Tierexp 2002, 19(2):73-78.
88. Christiansen T., Polak J. Comitology between political decision-making and technocratic governance: regulating GMOs in the European Union. EIPAScope 2009, 1:5-11. [accessed 10.09.12]. http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/20090709110450_Art1_Eipascoop2009_01.pdf.
89. Fischer ARH, Wentholt MTA, Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Expert involvement in policy development: a systematic review of current practice; in press.
90. Rollin B.E. The Frankenstein syndrome: ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals 1995, Cambridge University Press.