Hornless cattle – is gene editing the best solution?
Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapport › Konferencebidrag i proceedings › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Hornless cattle – is gene editing the best solution? / Sandøe, P.; Borchersen, S. ; Dean, W.; Hyttel, P.; Sørensen, L.P.; Palmer, C.
Justice and food security in a changing climate: EurSafe 2021, Fribourg, Switzerland, 24-26 June 2021. red. / Hanna Schübel; Ivo Wallimann-Helmer. Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2021. s. 324-330.Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapport › Konferencebidrag i proceedings › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - GEN
T1 - Hornless cattle – is gene editing the best solution?
AU - Sandøe, P.
AU - Borchersen, S.
AU - Dean, W.
AU - Hyttel, P.
AU - Sørensen, L.P.
AU - Palmer, C.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Most dairy cows in Europe and the US have no horns. But this is mostly an artefact. Typically, the ability to grow horns is removed by means of so-called disbudding which, even when it is done with the use of local analgesia in combination with painkillers, may have long term negative effects on animal welfare. This suggests the need to seek alternatives. One alternative approach makes use of the genetic disposition not to grow horns (called polledness), which occurs naturally among domestic cattle but is not widespread within the typical dairy breeds. For economic reasons, the achievement of 100% polled dairy cattle through conventional breeding has a very long time-horizon. Gene-editing, most likely by using CRISPR-Cas 9, is an obvious alternative technique that has been shown to work. In this paper we consider whether using gene-editing is preferable to disbudding and conventional breeding from an ethical and a regulatory perspective. We discuss four kinds of ethical concerns: (1) naturalness; (2) respect for animal integrity; (3) animal and human welfare; and (4) human health and safety. Regarding (1) we argue that gene-edited cows are not significantly more unnatural than other modern cattle. Regarding (2) we argue that gene-edited individual cows are not disrespected. Regarding (3) we argue that there may be short-term significant negative effects on animal welfare, but that in the longer term there will be significant positive effects; and regarding (4) we argue that the well-being and safety of those working with the cattle is a strong argument in favour of polled cattle, while potential issues for consumer health are negligible. Our conclusion is that gene-editing dairy cattle for polledness seems to be a potentially acceptable and feasible solution. However, regulatory changes, either in the EU or in the US, will be required before the solution will work in practice. Recent developments in the US indicate that regulatory changes are very likely.
AB - Most dairy cows in Europe and the US have no horns. But this is mostly an artefact. Typically, the ability to grow horns is removed by means of so-called disbudding which, even when it is done with the use of local analgesia in combination with painkillers, may have long term negative effects on animal welfare. This suggests the need to seek alternatives. One alternative approach makes use of the genetic disposition not to grow horns (called polledness), which occurs naturally among domestic cattle but is not widespread within the typical dairy breeds. For economic reasons, the achievement of 100% polled dairy cattle through conventional breeding has a very long time-horizon. Gene-editing, most likely by using CRISPR-Cas 9, is an obvious alternative technique that has been shown to work. In this paper we consider whether using gene-editing is preferable to disbudding and conventional breeding from an ethical and a regulatory perspective. We discuss four kinds of ethical concerns: (1) naturalness; (2) respect for animal integrity; (3) animal and human welfare; and (4) human health and safety. Regarding (1) we argue that gene-edited cows are not significantly more unnatural than other modern cattle. Regarding (2) we argue that gene-edited individual cows are not disrespected. Regarding (3) we argue that there may be short-term significant negative effects on animal welfare, but that in the longer term there will be significant positive effects; and regarding (4) we argue that the well-being and safety of those working with the cattle is a strong argument in favour of polled cattle, while potential issues for consumer health are negligible. Our conclusion is that gene-editing dairy cattle for polledness seems to be a potentially acceptable and feasible solution. However, regulatory changes, either in the EU or in the US, will be required before the solution will work in practice. Recent developments in the US indicate that regulatory changes are very likely.
U2 - 10.3920/978-90-8686-915-2_50
DO - 10.3920/978-90-8686-915-2_50
M3 - Article in proceedings
SN - 978-90-8686-362-4
SP - 324
EP - 330
BT - Justice and food security in a changing climate
A2 - Schübel, Hanna
A2 - Wallimann-Helmer, Ivo
PB - Wageningen Academic Publishers
T2 - EurSafe2021
Y2 - 24 June 2021 through 26 June 2021
ER -
ID: 274239924