When introducing new, sophisticated techniques like genetic modification of animals, the following should be taken into account:
- the benefits of new product(s) or techniques should be evident and clearly demonstrated to the general public.
- there seems to be little public support for the genetic modification of farm animals.
- the genetic modification of farm animals for medical purposes seems to be more acceptable to the general public than for production purposes. However, a large scale destruction of gm-farm animals, or the use of carcasses from gm-animals for feed and/or food purposes may easily trigger a
discussion on the sector as a whole.
- segregation of the products derived form gm-animals and labelling of the end product will give the consumer the opportunity to choose.
- general consumer concerns are to be taken serious and tackled with openness and, whenever possible the will to comply with those concerns (demands) in terms of R&D.
- in order to become familiar with those consumer concerns and to create a future scenario, which has support in society, an open pro-active discussion should be started at an early stage. The breeders should preferably base their policy on the outcome of a dialogue with the consumer and animal welfare organisations
References
Becker, Tilman; Benner, Eckhard; Glitsch, Kristina (1998) - “Consumer behaviour towards meat in Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom”- Dept. of Agr. Policy and Agr.
Economics; Universities of Hohenheim and Göttingen.
Durant, J. et al (1998) - Biotechnology in the public sphere, Appendix 2: Eurobarometer 1996, survey results, Science Museum, London.
Eurobarometer (1997) – The Europeans and modern biotechnology. Eurobarometer 46.1. October and November 1996. EU Study EC DGXII. 87pp.
European Brief (1995) - “Veal and Animal Welfare – what the Public Think in Italy and France” RSPCA (UK).
Eurogroup For Animal Welfare (1998) - MORI Survey. Public Attitudes in France, Great Brittain, Spain, Italy, Germany on Egg Purchasing and Labelling.
Gofton, Leslie; Kuznesof, Sharron; Ritson, Christofer (1996) - “Consumer acceptability of Biotechnology in Relation to Food Products, with Special Reference to Farmed Fish” - EU Study EC DGXII, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.
Koopman, B.; de Jong, J.M.; Gutteling, J.M.; Seydel, E.r. (1998) - Publiek en genetische manipulatie 1998: meningsvorming en informatievoorziening, Twente University (Enschede, The Netherlands).
Meulenberg, M.T.G. (1996) - “Market and Consumer” -, Wageningen Agricultural University (in Dutch) Moses, V. (1998) - “Looking at the Biotechnology Consumer”; EU Study EC DGXII, King’s College, London 1998.
Nielsen, Torben Hviid (1997) - Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 15 December 1997; “Behind the color code of
“no”. Based on Eurobarometer on Biotechnology, 46.1.
Sandøe, P.; Holtug, N. (1998) – Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology in Farm Animal Production. Acta Agric.
Scand. Suppl. 29
Smink, C. (1998) - Maatschappelijke Acceptatie van genetische modificatie bij dieren – SWOKA (in Dutch).
Van Genderen, Arie W. (1995) - “Animal Welfare and the Environment”; study on behalf of the Consumentenbond. Consumer & Biotechnology Foundation (in Dutch).
Vullings, Jan (1998) - Stemkaart of kassabon? - Agrarisch Dagblad, December 24,1998.
Discussion
regarding presentations by John McInerney and Arie van Genderen
Dave Burt – UK
I like to suggest an alternative interpretation of consumer views on the use of genetics in animals. Rather than concerning of consumers about welfare, I would suggest that it has more to do with perceived food safety. For example, there is a perception on Tracy and other genetically modified farm animals, a perception, whether it is true or not, that eating a genetically modified organism is not healthy. So nobody cares about the animals welfare.
On the other hand it is OK to use a genetically modified organism for medical purposes. So: they do not care, but if these cure faster. I propose the opposition has not to do with animal welfare. It is food safety.
Would you like to comment on that?
Arie van Genderen
I more or less agree with you. In many aspects, if you look at genetically modified plants safety aspects are the first things people are concerned about. As for animals, I expect, safety would come first. And then animal welfare. The article in the proceedings supports your statement.
Nanke den Daas – The Netherlands
My question relates to the consumers’ perception of animal breeders. Whether, although all animal breeding organisations do not want to use, or still discuss about using genetically modified animals, the public perception is that there are genetic modified animals? Do we have information on this, whether the public perception is so ambivalent? And, if that is the case, should we then fight that perception by saying no, we do not? Or should we say yes, we do but we do it in such and such a way?
Arie van Genderen
The perception that there are modified animals is already rather widespread. The man in the street does not distinguish between farm animals and pharmaceutical animals. You could try to fight that perception, but I do not think you will succeed.
I can not find scientific evidence to support this, but it is my feeling. I have been having a lot of
discussion about this subject in the last three years, and everybody is convinced that the discussions on genetic modification of animals will spread on all the animals. Farm animals or not.
Nanke den Daas – The Netherlads
So this is like the speaker said this morning: what is true is what is believed.
Arie van Genderen
In most cases, yes. That is the reason why we, as an organisation, and all the other consumer and welfare organisations have an obligation to the public to get the facts right. That is not the same as convincing the public that they have a wrong perception.
Peter Bradnock – UK
Could you reconcile about consumers being most interested in the price of the products?
Arie van Genderen
My experience in a lot of discussions in the Netherlands on this part of the discussion is that the consumer is aware of the production system and wants to buy safe, ethically sound products. Also end products. Free range eggs etcetera. There is an awareness among the public. Also the awareness is growing, but still it is only a very small proportion of the public.
I am afraid this proportion might still grow a little more, but as soon as economy goes down a bit, we are back were we started: at price. I am rather pessimistic about it.
J.P.M. Schenkelaars – The Netherlands
Coming back to the perception of the public that animal farms are already being genetically modified. I would like to remind this for the discussion where the animal breeding industry would like to go for the high tech path producing biopharmaceuticals. If you choose for that option, you will go definitely to genetic modification. If you are looking for livestock for meat production or milk production, as in the in the diagrams shown this morning, only in the low cost path transgenesis would be useful. So, I mean it is really not to ethical breeders at this moment to decide whether they want to join life science industry to go also for the fourth high tech path. If breeders decide not to breed for pharmaceuticals, then they have an option to explain to the public: “We are only breeding for food production”. Then you can make definitely clear that you are not going to use genetic modification. This is also a strategic option within your reach at the moment.
Jan Merks
This point should come back to the general discussion too. It gives an overview of a lot of aspects we are dealing with nowadays.
Jean Paul Renard - France
Is there a kind of hierarchy regarding the species of farm animals for the consumer or is there no hierarchy between animals?
Arie van Genderen
I have seen surveys where it was suggested that there is a hierarchy. The higher ranking the animal is, the more concerns there are. Mice are lower in the hierarchy than cows, or monkeys.