Discussion in four sessions succeeding the presentations at the workshop of 3 June 1999, and in a final general discussion.
Presentation by Alessandro Bagnato and Anne-Marie Neeteson
Three different scenarios (conventional path, alternative path, low cost path) related to possible breeding goals and the involvement of different bio-technologies were presented.
The discussion at the beginning was focused on sustainability, especially on the association of the low cost path and non sustainable agriculture that was presented as a provocative relationship. The discussion focussed on the definition of sustainability and the different aspects that might contribute to its definition and interpretation: i) undesirable side effects in high producing animals (e.g. health problems), ii) biodiversity, iii) variability in food products and production.
Furthermore, possible interactions of the different paths were discussed: each path can benefit from others.
Other paths were proposed by the audience, one specifically related to advanced bio-technologies for non-food products. The authors of the presentation raised two major points: 1) Are animal breeders interested in raising animals for non food purposes? 2) In principle their technologies can be used from organic farming or low cost production systems to high production systems, being merely a tool and not per se a production path as such.
The audience discussed about the production of non food animals, e.g. for pharmaceutical products or organs for xenotransplantation. The request for non food animals is already addressed to breeding companies today. Should the animal breeding industry be involved in this? Are animal breeding organisations ready to decide at this moment or do they wish to discuss more about it? Clearly, there was a need for further discussion.
Another remark was related to differences between countries in the EC (North-South). This is a reality affecting the markets, they are different. Furthermore, other economical, societal, ethical, environmental, or food safety constraints can affect the possibilities of developments and applications of
bio-technologies.
Presentation by Peter Sandøe
An overview of the available literature on the ethical perspectives of breeding and bio-technologies, together with various concerns, the ways to handle them, and cultural differences was presented.
A first comment was that the breeding industry produces what the farmer desires and that it should involve societal needs as well. The internal discussion in the breeding industry about breeding goals has to face both reality and the future. Animal welfare being a topic, the breeding industry has to face, it is better to start a dialogue with society making the problems clear. If there is dialogue there can be a solution to a problem, much better than ignoring societal concerns and becoming unpopular. The chance and opportunity to make the industry reality understandable and to show to the society that industry is
making modest and sensible progress can move public opinion to support it and to find ways for new solutions. This is seen, by an ethicist point of view, as the only feasible strategy.
The way forward in the hands of the industry is to care about the ethical problems. Industries who denied any problem, had to admit it later. Having started a good dialogue they could have avoided it, and this would have been more constructive.
A remark was made that sometimes it is not possible for industry to change their production system. In the case of forbidding the farrowing cages in pigs, companies are being forced to do something that pushes them out of business. Again the ethicist point of view is that if there is no dialogue the regulations are imposed without the possibility for producers to let understand what is vital for them. The two
empirical hypotheses to reach a societal acceptance are either to have a dialogue or stay though.
Animal integrity and human concerns are two topics in the ongoing discussion. Animal welfare can be obtained with different strategies and for different aims. Going for welfare and explaining the reasons make that respected even by people aiming at animal integrity first, because they can see one is taking an ethical stand, not just being arrogant.
Cloning is an activity not well accepted by public opinion because they do not understand the reason and the consequences of that. Because of all the media noise the explanation why Dolly was cloned out of Tracy could not get through.
Just adding cloning, or just using cloning in tomorrows’ farm animal breeding and reproduction industry is almost of no use. It is adding only very little. And due to the present cost it is even more expensive than not using it.
There was a consideration on the public opinion about scientists working in biotechnology and on the present level of knowledge of biology and ethical issues in society. More and better biology and phylosophy education would be a prerequisite for good public discussions on DNA and genes.
Presentations by John McInerney and Arie van Genderen
An alternative interpretation of the consumer point of view with regard to the use of biotechnologies in animal breeding is that consumers pay more attention to food safety than to animal welfare. Transgenic animals are well accepted for medical purposes: they can provide faster cure and this is what society cares about. However, the consumption of the meat of these animals might give associations with medicines and damage the image of meat produced by farm animals in the agricultural food production chain.
The perception of the consumer on the existence of genetically modified animals is rather widespread.
There is no distinction between farm animals and animals for pharmaceuticals in public perception.
Although there is no evidence for such an affirmation, the discussion on genetically modified animals never distinguishes between the two categories mentioned before.
Nowadays consumers are aware of the production system and want to buy safe, ethically sound
products. The awareness is probably growing a little but as soon as economy goes down a bit, public will go back at price.
The higher ranking the animal is, the more concerns for genetic modification there is. Mice are lower in the hierarchy than cows, or monkeys.
Presentation by Christine Noiville
In the biotech field there is a lot of fear about what a patent can cover, because they can be quite broad and provide wide monopolies for many reasons: pioneer invention in a new field, techniques applied in very different contexts. Nevertheless such broad patents could give real problems for technical progress, because if one has the monopoly other ones are not interested to work in the same field: whatever they develop it will not be patentable. There is not yet a precise study on the effect of patents in the biotechnological field after five or ten years.
General discussion
The presentations are not representing opinion of industry, or any one else, but aim to stimulate discussion on a topic of great interest to society
Patenting is a very important topic involving farming, especially for the directive on the protection of biotechnological inventions with regard to the farmer’s privilege.
It is important to bear in mind that the societal points of view of the US and Europe are very different with respect to technology.
Most of the discussion suggested that perhaps the breeding companies should consider that their basis goes much further than simply the farmers who buy their products. That being the case, than who should the breeders be listening to, how should they get criteria to formulate breeding goals and breeding programmes? It is really very difficult to know who breeders should be listening to. The discussion concentrates on information and messages received from society, the customer of the animal breeder, how the information chain is working and how this will probably change in the very near future.
Then it was observed in the discussion, that the market itself is the true reflection of the wishes in society. Again the discussion touches topics like which strategies should breeders take to deal with the necessities of society (a concensus conference was mentioned as a workable option); there is a strong need for discussion and information, and that this process must be as much transparent as possible to public.
The meeting did not express a clear viewpoint of the industry, because industry is at the very start of the discussion. The possibility of core ethical values of industry was mentioned, and the need for more education in ethics and societal awareness in breeding and reproduction education was concluded.
What would be the direct interest in modern biotecnology is a further topic of discussion raised to the attention of the audience. Particularly the discussion develops on the minimal expected contribution of genetically modified organisms and advanced techniques like cloning in the animal breeding sector compared to what we have and will achieve with traditional breeding.
Conclusion
The workshop has started up a discussion on farm animal breeding and reproduction in a way that it is made more transparent to society. New questions were raised, one of them being whether the farm animal breeding industry should get involved with producing for the pharmaceutical industry, or stick to producing food like it has done until now.
Furthermore, it became clear that the discussion should continue, and that it needs to take place not nationally, but at the European level, taking into account the global situation.