AgBioForum, 14(2): 83-93. ©2011 AgBioForum.
The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food
Chain: Early Insights from an Irish Sentinel Group
Cathal Murphy and Maeve Henchion
Ashtown Food Research Centre, Dublin
Mary McCarthy
University College, Cork
Gwilym A. Williams
Dublin Institute of Technology
European stakeholders will soon face a decision regarding the
acceptability of livestock cloning. Commercial exploitation of
cloning for food purposes within the European Union will require
an insight into public sentiment, and a communication strategy
that addresses risk perception. The present study canvassed
the opinions of expert stakeholders within the Irish arena.
Respondents surveyed did not identify animal cloning as an
impending food priority issue, and there was little evidence of indepth awareness regarding the advanced developmental stage
of this technology. Specific probing around this topic revealed
varying receptivity to the idea of cloning for food purposes. Interestingly, with certain exceptions, a primarily utilitarian ethical
perspective (based on perceived risk-benefit), rather than outright rejection on principle, appeared to inform interviewee opinion on aspects such as animal welfare and consumer choice.
However, the near-term prospects for adoption of cloning for
food were largely viewed with skepticism.
Key words: animal cloning for food, expert Irish stakeholder
awareness, ethical perspectives, market prospects.
Introduction
The current Irish National Development Plan identifies
biotechnology as a driver of economic growth (Anonymous, 2007; Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food [DAFF], 2010). Freedom to operate in the market
and the ability to raise investment capital based on societal acceptance are central to the successful translation
of technology into wealth creation. However, the negative European experience with genetically modified
(GM) plants has created a new business paradigm
whereby exploitation of GM technologies is retarded,
and indigenous GM technology development is stunted.
This misalignment between “technology push” and
“market pull” can have severe consequences for those
wishing to exploit such technologies. Technology developers can be faced with the situation of having succeeded in gaining intellectual property protection and
the marketing authorization of regulatory authorities but
having no freedom to operate in the marketplace. The
first generation of GM foods, epitomized by Monsanto’s
Roundup Ready® crops, were widely perceived by the
European consumer as offering benefit only to the producer (Williams, 2000). Public concern based on perceived risk and food safety, rather than an intrinsic
rejection per se, has been witnessed with such products
(reviewed in Bryant, Baggot la Velle, & Searle, 2005),
and this observation is a critical one for companies
wishing to progress other food biotechnology applications.
With the notable exception of tardy approval of GM
feed by the European Union, the barriers to trade and
development of GM plants has arguably had limited relevance to Irish agriculture. However, the situation
regarding new biotechnology innovations in animal
breeding is likely to be quite different. The agri-food
sector accounts for 8.1% of total employment and 9% of
total exports in Ireland (Irish Cattle Breeding Federation
Society [ICBF], 2007). Cattle-farming is the primary
form of agriculture in terms of livestock numbers, and
accounts for 54% of total agricultural output. Ireland
exports nine out of every ten beef animals, which makes
it the largest beef exporter in the European Union and
one of the largest in the world (Teagasc, 2008). The continued success of this sector is underpinned by the rapid
adoption and integration of the latest technological
innovation, so productivity can be maximized in a sustainable fashion. Modern breeding techniques seek to
overcome challenges that reduce profitability, such as
limitations posed by natural service, infertility, disease
transmission, feed conversion inefficiency, and inconsistencies in food safety/quality. One of the best examples of this has been the translation of DNA analysis and
functional genomics developed for human medicine into
the area of animal health and breeding (Lambert, 2008).
The integration of genetic marker data into existing
Economic Breeding Indices (EBI; based on herd record
data, such as milk yields) is well-advanced in Ireland
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 84
(Berry, Kearney, & Harris, 2009; Evans, 2008). Such
technology permits the more reliable translation of genotype to phenotype and increases the chances of retaining desirable traits such as disease resistance and meat
quality in progeny animals (Cunningham & Meghan,
2001), therefore producing animals that command a
higher price. However, absolute certainty of the inheritance of desirable traits from generation to generation
can only be assured by a method that circumvents
genetic recombination (via meiosis) and mingling of the
male and female chromosome complement during sex.
Cloning is the only means of achieving this.
The cloning of superior pedigree livestock, which
offers high productivity and consistent quality, is now a
technical and commercial reality in the United States.
Will breeders be at a competitive disadvantage if such
technologies are not deployed in Ireland? Should
research funding agencies support the indigenous development of cloning technologies, so Ireland is not relegated to becoming a net importer of such innovation?
Clearly, insight into such questions hinges on the
response of society (and the prospective consumer). The
precedent regarding the existing use of biotechnology in
agriculture might imply a negative response to such
questions; however, the intersection of economics, technological strength (with perceived national importance),
and market opportunity in conventional animal production, with its attendant societal reservations regarding
the treatment of animals, does not appreciably limit this
sector (Institute of Grocery Distribution [IGD], 2007).
With a view to providing an early insight into the
prospects for acceptance of animal cloning technology
in Ireland within a food context, the present study
describes the results of a series of in-depth qualitative
interviews conducted with “expert” stakeholders. The
definition of expert that was used to select interviewees
was based on factors such as job responsibilities and
actual or potential involvement in cloning-related areas.
In being empowered to keep a watching brief on food
technology, market, or regulatory developments, such
individuals might be expected to fulfill a sentinel function (or in common parlance, possess a finger-on-thepulse position regarding the future of animal cloning
into the agri-food sector).
Background
Consumer trust and risk perception are paramount in the
consideration of the launch of any new food product
(Huotilainen & Tuorila, 2005). Before the emergence of
the various food crises in the early nineties, public trust
in national and EU risk evaluation mechanisms
remained largely untested; such systems relied on a
technocratic framework that stressed the scientific
method and featured relatively little involvement of the
public in actual decision making (Radaelli, 1999). In the
intervening period, a new model of governance has
emerged which seeks to complement scientific evaluation by embracing the idea of egalitarian information
networks, thereby supplanting the hierarchies as an integral component of state-society relationships (Bache,
2003; McCrea, 2005; Shepherd, 2008). Central to such
greater openness of the regulatory system is the adoption by government of a coordination and facilitation
stance, rather than a more traditional one of command.
In the wake of public disquiet on issues such as GM
foods and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, Europe
has sought to increase public confidence through the
transparency of risk analysis and by increasing stakeholder participation. Central to effective risk governance is a recognition of the current and future needs of
key stakeholders in the debate. The early identification
of emerging technologies that may pose acceptance
issues for the public is vital.
Undoubtedly mindful of the variable public reaction
to GM crops, both US and EU regulatory agencies have
been keen to assess the development of animal cloning
for food purposes within the context of specific consumer concerns. Putative benefits for animal health and
human nutrition such as disease resistance, productivity,
and product consistency (Wheeler, 2003) vie with basic
questions regarding food safety, market need, cost effectiveness, potential trade implications, and a host of
divergent ethical dilemmas (Rosenbergen, 2007; Suk et
al., 2007). Following an initial draft report published in
December 2006, the United States Food and Drug
Administration (US FDA) published a comprehensive
risk assessment in January 2008, which concluded that
edible products from clones and their offspring (cattle,
swine, and goats) were as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts (US FDA, 2008). However, perceived ethical issues have been a potential stumbling
block in Europe. The European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) initially published a favorable draft opinion
(dealing only with cattle and pigs), which indicated that
food safety concerns were unlikely (EFSA, 2008). However, the European Group on Ethics in Science and New
Technologies (EGE) to the European Commission (EC)
subsequently cast doubts about the ethical acceptability
of animal cloning (EGE, 2008) on the basis of the current high mortality rate among clones, and ancillary
welfare concerns. Since a consideration of animal wel-
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 85
fare is an integral aspect of EU agricultural policy, the
European Parliament subsequently passed a resolution
that such technology should be summarily banned from
use in the food sector (Anonymous, 2008). While the
EC has not yet accepted such a proposal, the intervening
years have seen EFSA conduct widespread consultation
with stakeholders and an ongoing assessment of newly
published scientific data regarding the safety of food
from clones. Although no evidence has emerged to alter
the original conclusions of their 2008 report (EC, 2010),
the discovery in Britain in August 2010 that the produce
of cloned offspring had inadvertently entered the British
food chain (Meikle & Phillips, 2010) highlighted deficiencies in the regulatory system. It also revealed confusion in the interpretation of existing European
legislation. A consensus agreed that meat derived from
clones would be required to be formally assessed for
safety and approved under Regulation EC 258/97,1 but
the situation regarding clone offspring was revealed to
be less certain. For example, the British Food Standards
Agency contended that offspring should also be subject
to EC258/97 (FSA, 2010), while the European Commission disputed this (EurActiv, 2010a). Developments culminated in late 2010, when the European commission
proposed a temporary, 5-year suspension of animal
cloning for food production in the European Union
(which would not be applicable to clone offspring; EC,
2010). At the time of writing, such a proposal has yet to
be approved by the European Council and the Parliament, and Britain has criticized the move as being
unjustified. Looking to the longer term, it is probably
more likely that cloning may be regulated under new
bespoke legislation (EurActiv, 2010b) rather than be
incorporated into the long-overdue revision of the novel
foods regulation. Such continuing regulatory uncertainty is reminiscent of the EU market landscape for
GM foods in the early 1990s, which extends to the current day, and does not bode well for the integration of
clone-derived products into the food chain. Traceability
issues also loom, and the United States has already
established a voluntary tracking system (Hodges, 2010)
in anticipation of requirements in Europe.
These developments received widespread news coverage in the latter half of 2010 (for examples, see Anonymous, 2010; Poulter, 2010) and undoubtedly raised the
consciousness of the general public both to the existence
1. Novel Foods Regulation applies to food and ingredients not
consumed in appreciable amounts in the European Union
before May 1997.
of cloning in agriculture and the imminent arrival of
cloned produce in the marketplace. Only a few studies
of European public attitudes to the concept of animal
cloning for food purposes were conducted before this
time period. The largest was the Flash Eurobarometer
study published in 2008 (EC, 2008).2 The latter indicated ethical reservations about animal cloning, and the
majority rejected its use in the food chain. A very high
number of interviewees had heard of cloning and had
some degree of understanding of cloning basics, but
such results may be partly explained by assimilation of
the concept into popular media such as literature and
film, and its actual embodiment in Dolly the sheep, the
first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell (FSA,
2009). It should be pointed out that the slippery slope
hypothesis, basically that cloning will be perfected in
animals and then applied to humans, is a recurrent and
common theme in popular culture (Fiester, 2005).
It is noteworthy that Eurobarometer has been specifically sampling attitudes to biotechnology regularly
since 1991, but did not contextualize animal cloning
within an overt food context until the 2008 study. Previous surveys sampled opinions on issues such as the use
of clones in human medicine and the use of GM animals
in laboratory research. Such an omission could reflect
either a lack of awareness regarding the development
status of this technology for food applications or a purposeful relegation of its importance to the European citizen based on an assessment at the time. By 2010, the
issue of cloning animals for food became a staple of the
mainstream “biotechnology Eurobarometer” (Gaskell et
al., 2010), which again signaled a low level of support
for its use in food production.
Purpose of the Study
The primary aim of the current work was to investigate
the topic of farm animal cloning with a panel comprising key Irish stakeholders. Exploration of the current
awareness of this group regarding the development status of the technology was sought, along with some
insights into their attitudes to cloning within the context
2. Eurobarometer is a pan-European survey instrument
designed to glean the opinions of citizens from existing (and
often future) European Union member nations on topics of
existing or emerging importance. Each national survey consists of approximately 1,000 face-to-face interviews (usually)
that feature identical questions. The total sample size has
increased as the European Union has grown in member
states, and as of 2011, the number of interviewees exceeds
25,000 persons.
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 86
Table 1. Interviewee classification.
Organization type
Primary role / responsibility
Qualification (highest)
Government agency
Company support, meat sector
MSc
Advisory, company business support
MSc
Advisory, regulatory, ethics
PhD
University
Private company
Non-governmental organization (NGO)
Religious body
Industry analyst, animal-derived foods
MA
Regulatory, food safety
PhD
Research, animal productivity
PhD
Reproduction, animal
DSc
Genetics, animal
PhD
Immunology, human-animal
PhD
Scientific communication
PhD
Beef production
HDip
Animal breeding
MSc
Retail sales
MSc
Venture capital, emerging technologies
PhD
Agriculture, public representation-lobbying
MSc
Farming, organic, public representation-lobbying
MA
Farming, organic, public representation-lobbying
MSc
Animal welfare, public representation-lobbying
BSc
Animal welfare, public representation-lobbying
BA
Christian
of biotechnology, food, and agriculture. A secondary
aim was to examine spontaneous thought processes on
issues such as ethical reasoning pertaining to animal
exploitation in biotechnology and agriculture.
Data Collection and Methodology
The key criterion for inclusion of interviewees in the
study was the perceived relevance of the person’s dayto-day role to the emerging issue of animal cloning in an
agri-food context. In general, interviewees occupied
senior positions in administration, business development, or academia; possessed a responsibility to actively
seek out information with a view to increasing personal
and organizational intelligence; and were judged to possess a high potential to be influential in the emerging
national debate on cloning. Reflecting the trend for
increased participation of non-government actors in
national policy formation (Barling, 2007), interviewee
organizations spanned universities, industry, animal
welfare and consumer-citizen representative groups, and
government agencies (Table 1).
Interviewees (n=19) were primarily identified
through a proprietary national contacts database, and
this was supplemented by identifying key individuals on
the basis of authorship of relevant peer-reviewed publications and government reports. Two respondents—one
MSc
from a university in the field of human-animal immunology and another in the field of animal breeding from
a private company—were recommended by other interviewees in the course of the study.
The format used for data collection was a semistructured, in-depth interview, which featured questions
covering five major themes: food industry, technological innovation, societal perspectives, exploitation of
non-human animals, and moral aspects. The subject of
animal cloning was initially contextualized during interviews against a general background of an evolving food
biotechnology sector, and the relevance of this to the
Irish agri-food system. The majority of interviews took
place at the interviewee’s work place between October
2009 and January 2010 and lasted between 1 and 2
hours. Interviews were digitally recorded (supplemented
by written notes) and were later transcribed. Analysis of
the coded interviews was carried out using NVivo7 software (QSR International), with specific examination for
content pertaining to the research objectives.
Results and Discussion
Interviewees were initially asked to identify priority
issues, opportunities and challenges, that is, for the
European food sector. Only a single person cited the
emergence of animal cloning for food purposes as an
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 87
unprompted, top-of-mind issue, liable to emerge over
the short-medium term. A food safety representative
working in regulation for a government agency said during the interview:
“I suppose novel food is the busiest [area], but
nanotech and the animal cloning are busier now
because the Novel Food [Act] is being revised,
and there’s new legislation coming and it’s going
to include animal cloning. When I say include,
it’s going to include it… include it to ban it,
which doesn’t make sense. … Nanotechnology
was as mentioned as well. They’re on the horizon at present in other countries, not in Europe
yet, but it’s coming down the tracks. So it’s
important to keep ahead of those.”
Further discussion revealed that with only a few
exceptions, formal discourse on the topic of animal
cloning at the organizational level had not occurred to
any significant degree. Only a single participant organization had incorporated such debate into a policy document (at the time of interview). There was little
evidence that this reflected a conscious relegation of the
issue to a lower level of importance on the basis of
detailed consideration. Rather, it was the level of awareness regarding the progress of such innovation for food
purposes that appeared to be low; interviewees were
generally reactive to questions concerning cloning
rather than proactive in demonstrating a knowledge of
the key aspects. It is important to highlight that the interviews pre-dated the much-publicized United Kingdom
clone incident described by Meikle and Phillips (2010)
by six months.
While receptivity to the idea of cloning for food purposes varied among interviewees, the near-term prospects for this technology were largely viewed with
skepticism. A person interviewed in retail sales for a private company said,
“I would say it’s just about got no chance, probably because the producer just won’t bother to go
there—too expensive. In the short term, and 10
years is the short term in this technology, [it is]
too expensive to be at all viable.”
Interviewees demonstrated good awareness of the
uses of modern technology in food production, and
interestingly over half advocated a role for genetic modification as a component of plant breeding. A similar
number expressed doubt on the putative health benefits
of functional foods. However, with the exception of
interviewees directly engaged in the animal or meat sectors, an awareness of more near-term technologies in
animal husbandry was not apparent. Additionally,
knowledge relating to high profile failures of animal
biotechnology such as the ‘Beltsville pigs’3 (Tansey &
D’Silva, 1999), or newer GM innovation such as
‘Enviro-pig’4 (Minard, 2010) was not apparent. This
reflects the wider European situation where public recognition of terms such as “genetic modification” and
“cloning” is higher than terminology such as “genomic
selection” (Gibbs, Holloway, Gilna, & Morris, 2009).
Following on from this, objective knowledge about
the role of currently used assisted reproductive technology (ART) in animal breeding varied widely. Artificial
insemination (AI) was the primary reference point for
most interviewees who were not directly involved in
this sector. Respondents who possessed a technology
background and demonstrated a knowledge of ART differed in opinion on the commercial viability of techniques such as embryo transfer and splitting. The value
of the animal was of paramount importance in the consideration of this option. A university employee working in reproduction said,
“So AI could be used more in the dairy [industry]. AI is not used widely in the beef side.
Embryo transfer is only used for high-value animals that tend to be pedigree animals. I don’t
think you can say much more about that.”
Greater consensus was apparent in those possessing
a technology background on the issue of farm animal
cloning. More than half agreed that cloning could be
viewed as “an extension of the natural breeding process.” A single reservation was registered relating to a
perceived fundamental flaw of the technique: The incorporation of mature DNA into an egg was cited as a
3. The US Department of Agriculture’s Beltsville facility carried
out the genetic modification of pigs using a bovine or human
growth hormone gene to increase yield (Pursel et al., 1989).
The pigs demonstrated increased weight gain and feed efficiency, and exhibited changes in carcass composition that
included a marked reduction in subcutaneous fat. However,
the pigs also had obvious physical deformities, including premature arthritis, dermatitis, and problems affecting their
major organs.
4. Enviropig is a pig that has been genetically modified to
excrete less phosphorus, with putative benefits for feed conversion and the environment.
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 88
major pre-disposing factor for possible increased mutation rate and premature aging. There was also evidence
of a close association of cloning with transgenic technologies in the minds of some respondents, perhaps
reflecting an awareness of the origins of animal cloning
technology within the human health (pharmaceutical)
sphere. An animal productivity representative working
in research for a government agency said during the
interview:
“No, it’s a very big step; it’s a very different
approach altogether. The other technologies are
really just assisting or trying to control or trying
to enhance the normal process — maybe correct
a hormonal deficit or maybe increase the number
of eggs present — so to give you a better chance
of one being fertilized or implanting multiple
embryos, again in the hope that one at least
would grow in the womb or whatever the term
used. So they’re all really just trying to tweak
[original emphasis] the existing process. I suppose semen-sexing would be a bit outside tweaking the existing process, but cloning is definitely
coming at it from a totally different angle.”
The opinions of all interviewees were sought on the
perceived issues that would influence the acceptance or
rejection of animal cloning for food purposes by Irish
stakeholders. Aspects such as predicted economic benefits, consumer and public perception, ethical implications, animal welfare, and social justice were identified
as being important, but differences in emphasis were
apparent.
Among those interviewees who could envisage a
role for cloning in the food sector, a number of key factors were identified as being of critical importance in
deciding its commercial future. Among these, the market performance of the technology in the United States,
the required scale of operation, the feasibility of integration into existing farm practices (conventional and
organic), and resolution of any outstanding questions
relating to food safety were specifically mentioned. A
company business-support representative working in the
advisory role for a government agency said during the
interview:
“Investigate it. Get clear information on it.
Establish the facts. See what the viability aspects
of it are like, and if it’s safe and passes the
demands of food safety and all of that, there’s
something that has value in it. We haven’t got
information at this point to conclude that it’s like
that.”
Virtually all respondents predicted a negative
response among the public to the use of cloned animals
for food purposes. Some felt that consumer education
could be a positive modulating factor in gaining public
confidence, but the validity for such assumptions are the
subject of much debate (for example, see Knight, 2005).
Representatives from the meat processing and retail sectors also hypothesized a possible role for cloning in
delivering consumer-driven consistency in meat quality.
The potential of harnessing the technology to reduce
antibiotic use was also cited. An immunologist in
human/animal research for a university said during the
interview:
“Everybody will benefit I think, and a big issue
even just for general human health, [is] if you
can raise animals without ever having to give
them antibiotics. Isn’t that immediately obvious
as to how that’s going to be a benefit?”
Several interviewees also elaborated on aspects that
may represent catalysts for rejection by the public.
Associations with human cloning and popular science
fiction imagery including Shelley’s Frankenstein (Shelley, 1818) were highlighted as possible determinants in
influencing public attitudes to animal cloning, along
with concerns revolving around food safety and animal
welfare. Such findings have been previously reported
for Europe as a whole (EC, 2008).
The personal viewpoints of interviewees were also
sought in relation to the role of cloning in food production. Possible unforeseen adverse consequences of this
approach were mentioned by eight respondents who
expressed concern as to the adequacy of testing with
respect to food safety and impact on the environment.
Interviewees articulated instances in which putative
advantages of the technology might also simultaneously
represent a drawback. This was apparent on the issue of
product consistency gains delivered through cloning,
which essentially revolves around product uniformity
regarding quality and would be achieved at the cost of a
reduction in biodiversity. Trade-off issues were also recognized in relation to the requirements of animal welfare versus the need to deliver lower cost food at a time
of global recession.
Reflecting this balance sheet approach, and with
three notable exceptions, interviewees displayed predominantly utilitarian reasoning to analyse and express
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 89
their opinion on the morality of animal cloning.
Although the issue of social justice, or the possible marginalization of small farmers, featured to a degree, half
of the respondents cited animal welfare as the primary
ethical concern, in line with recent findings (EC, 2008,
2010), and such arguments are already well-embedded
in the European policy debate (Compassion in World
Farming [CIWF], 2008; Gjerris, Lassen, Meyer, &
Tveit, 2006; Lonergan et al., 2007; Madill, 2010; Vanhonacker, Verbeke, Poucke, Buijs, & Tuyttens, 2009;
Wrenzycki et al., 2004). The consensus primary argument revolves around the current high mortality rate of
clones. Established ART, such as artificial insemination
in cattle, can have a success rate of 94%, which is
almost ten-times as successful as cloning (Diskin &
O’Farrell, 1998).
Implicit in such reasoning is that future improvement in the success rate of animal cloning, along with
the evolution of a business model that would provide for
equitable access to its potential, will most likely represent key development milestones for proponents of the
technology. This is significant, as previous work in Ireland found that concern about animal welfare did not
appear to outweigh food safety or quality issues in the
minds of the consumer (Meehan, Cowan, & McIntyre,
2002). Coincidentally, interviewees in the present study
cited cost and quality as the primary influence in food
purchase decisions, rather than sustainability or ethical
concerns.
The commercial origin of animal cloning technology
within the pharmaceutical sector (Wall, Kerr, & Bondioli, 1997) and the successful approval of new medicines
produced in the milk of transgenic animals5 (Houdebine, 2009) are significant determinants in assuring the
progress of cloning technology. Spurred by the need to
exactly replicate valuable GM animals as a means to
produce human biopharmaceuticals, sometimes referred
to as “pharming” or “bio pharming,” technology
enhancements developed within this well-funded sphere
will translate directly into agriculture. Medical uses of
animal biotechnology, rather than agri-food applications, have well-documented, higher levels of perceived
utility among the public, and the recognition of the societal value of pharming, with cloning technology at its
5. Human anti-thrombin α (ATryn), which is an anticoagulant
protein produced in the milk of transgenic goats, was
approved by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency in
2006, and the FDA in 2009.
core, might represent a gateway to its acceptance by the
public for food use.
It is noteworthy that one industry representative
believed that ethics was not a significant consideration
in animal cloning. Indeed, it was articulated that should
the technology prove profitable, national competitiveness would dictate technology adoption as a prudent
strategy. These views were echoed by representatives
from the breeding, farming and public funding sectors.
An industry analyst working in the animal-derived food
sector for a government agency said during the interview:
“I think you look at… what’s happening with the
crops side over a couple of generations in terms
of the disease resistance strains. Farmers have
adopted those very well as standard, whereas on
the livestock side, we haven’t had that same level
of development, in some ways, maybe. But certainly I would say from a farmer point of view, if
there’s obviously a benefit there, they will adopt
it quite quickly.”
A number of stakeholders did acknowledge a
defined role for organized religion as active participants
in the debate. While not having a fundamental objection
to animal cloning per se, a representative from the
Christian faith questioned whether the goals of this technology might only fulfil a short-term aim and raised
concerns about future impacts on the environment.
Other principle-based ethical arguments against cloning
centred on theological concerns such as interference
with the work of the creator, disrespect for nature, commodification of life, and the loss of species identity
based on the Aristotelian concept of the telos, which is a
respect for the unique end-purpose of a creature and is
embodied within the context of its natural biological
identity. Such concerns are well recognized in the literature (Pascalev, 2006). In an interview, one animal welfare specialist for a non-governmental organization said
of cloning, “That’s tinkering [with nature], that’s really
tinkering.”
Summary and Conclusions
A current worldwide imbalance exists between the significant investment in biotechnology and research into
its societal ramifications. As the lesson with GM plants
illustrates, anticipating the market response to such
technologies may be challenging. The difficulty is exacerbated by the paucity of effective mechanisms to com-
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 90
municate the value of new technology to citizens and
consumers. Anachronistically, increases in societal
investment in technological development often correlates with heightened complexity of the end-product and
its attendant alien syntax, and the result is a pronounced
information asymmetry between societal groups. It is
well acknowledged that average citizens lack the lexicon of modern biosciences, and sampling public opinion
with a view to reconciling “technology push” with
“market pull” issues in such instances is difficult
(O’Connor, Williams, Cowan, O’Connell, & Boland,
2004).
Consumer and citizen acceptance is crucial to the
development of successful food products (MacFie,
2007). Furthermore, public perception can have a strong
impact, both direct and indirect, on the progress of new
technologies (Siegrist, 2010). A direct effect might be
outright rejection, whereas indirect effects could include
the imposition of stricter regulations by government,
perhaps leading to higher production costs. It might not
always be mandatory to disclose information about how
a product is produced or processed. However, the level
of information available to the public and representative
groups through traditional media outlets as well as contemporary interactive and online social media suggests
it would be useful to gauge likely public acceptance of
the technologies at an early stage rather than risk a backlash later (Cox & Evans, 2008). Consequently, public
attitudes toward new food technologies should be taken
into account by scientists, technologists and industry at
an early stage of the development process (Siegrist,
2008, 2010) if the economic, social and other benefits of
such investment are to be reaped. Such upstream
engagement (i.e., at the early stage of technological
development) might transform traditional risk communication into more active participation in the decisionmaking process on behalf of public representatives
(Evers & D’Silva, 2009).
In the case of cloning, current cost issues and technical challenges dictate that only elite animals, which are
to be used as breeding stock, have been initial targets for
farm animal cloning (Faber, Molina, Ohlrichs, Vander
Zwaag, & Ferré, 2003; Wall et al., 2009), but there is no
current consensus regarding the commercial viability of
this. Estimated costs in the region of $13,000 to $17,500
(Oosthoek, 2008) can only be accurately interpreted
against the net value proposition to the end consumer.
Regardless of such issues, the results of this work would
indicate that Ireland does not appear to be ready to compete on a technological footing in this area, and is likely
to adopt a reactive “watching brief” position rather than
take a proactive stance. Such an approach would not
rule out possible access to cloning technology in the
future, for example, through technology licensing.
A key question will relate to public response locally
and globally. In this regard, the absence of an outright
rejection of cloning technology on the basis of principle
among many interviewees is noteworthy but cannot be
easily extrapolated to anticipate the attitudes of the general Irish public. The preponderance of advanced scientific degrees among the participants attests to their
explicit knowledge within their areas of expertise,
which was partly the basis for inclusion in the study in
the first place, and is evidence of their systematic training in logic. Conversely, the general public has relatively little knowledge about the food production
process. Therefore trust is a key aspect (Siegrist, 2008).
An additional inherent bias resulting from this study
cohort may be a reluctance among many in this group to
consider acceptance aspects of cloning that rely on tacit
knowledge such as spiritual belief or those relating to
cultural and psychological factors (reviewed in Finucane & Holup, 2005). Such unsympathetic perspectives
are evident in the biotechnology literature (see for
example, Miller, 2007), and the views of some of this
study cohort regarding functional foods might be reflective of this. Work is currently underway to assess the
wider applicability of these findings to potential consumers of cloned food produce, by using focus groups to
further dissect the salient issues.
References
Anonymous. (2007). Ireland’s National Development Plan, 20072013. Transforming Ireland: A better quality of life for all.
Dublin: National Development Plan. Available on the World
Wide
Web:
http://www.ndp.ie/docs/NDP_Homepage/
1131.htm.
Anonymous. (2008, September). European Parliament urges
commission to ban animal cloning for food supply. Luxembourg: Community Research and Development Information
Service (CORDIS). Available on the World Wide Web: http://
cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.document&N_RCN=29825.
Anonymous. (2010, March). In focus: Food from cloned animals.
Brussels, Belgium: EU Issue Tracker. Available on the World
Wide Web: http://www.euissuetracker.com/en/focus/Pages/
Food-from-Cloned-Animals.aspx.
Bache, I. (2003). Governing through governance: Education policy control under New Labour. Political Studies, 51(2), 300314.
Barling, D. (2007). Food supply chain governance and public
health externalities: Upstream policy interventions and the
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 91
UK State. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
20(3), 285-300.
Berry, D., Kearney, F., & Harris, B. (2009). Genomic selection in
Ireland. Proceedings of the Interbull International Workshop.
Uppsala, Sweden: International Committee for Animal
Recording.
Bryant, J., Baggott la Velle, L., & Searle, J. (2005). Introduction to
bioethics (p. 74). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF). (2008, July). Europe must
listen to its own report and ban cloning of animals for food
immediately. Surrey, UK: Author. Available on the World
Wide Web: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/
cm_docs/2008/n/nr2508.pdf.
Cox, D., & Evans, G. (2008). Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food
technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food
Quality and Preference, 19, 704-710.
Cunningham, E., & Meghan, C. (2001). Biological identification
systems: Genetic markers. Revue scientifique et technique
(International Office of Epizootics), 20(2), 491-499.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (DAFF). (2010).
Food harvest—A vision for Irish agri-food and fisheries 2020.
Dublin: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://
www.agriculture.gov.ie/agri-foodindustry/foodharvest2020/.
Diskin, M., & O’Farrell, K. (1998). Breeding management of
dairy cows. Carlow, Ireland: Teagasc.
EurActiv. (2010a, October 20). Commission to allow imports of
cloned food. Brussels, Belgium: Author. Available on the
World Wide Web: http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/commission-allow-imports-cloned-food-news-498941.
EurActiv. (2010b, January 15). Dalli: I’ll be the guardian of consumers’ interests. Brussels, Belgium: Author. Available on the
World Wide Web: http://www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/dalliguardian-consumers-interests/article-188912.
European Commission (EC). (2008, October). Europeans’ attitudes towards animal cloning: Analytical report (Flash Eurobarometer 238). Brussels: Author. Available on the World
Wide Web: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/resources/docs/
eurobarometer_cloning_en.pdf.
EC. (2010, October). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on animal cloning for food
production (COM[2010] 585 Final). Brussels, Belgium:
Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://
ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/docs/
20101019_report_ec_cloning_en.pdf.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2008). 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. The EFSA Journal, 767, 1-49. Available on the
World Wide Web: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/
Scientific_Opinion/
sc_op_ej767_animal_cloning_en,0.pdf?ssbinary=true.
European Group on Ethics (EGE). (2008, January). Ethical
aspects of animal cloning for food supply (Opinion No. 23).
Brussels, Belgium: The European Group on Ethics in Science
and New Technologies to the European Commission. Available on the World Wide Web: http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion23_en.pdf.
Evans, R. (2008). Development of an economic breeding index
(EBI) for Ireland. County Cork, Ireland: Irish Cattle Breeding
Federation. Available on the World Wide Web: http://
www.icbf.com/publications/files/EBI_Adare.PDF.
Evers, J., & D’Silva, J. (2009). Knowledge transfer from citizens’
panels to regulatory bodies in the domain of nano-enabled
medical applications. Innovation—The European Journal of
Social Science Research, 22(1), 125-142.
Faber, D.C., Molina, J.A., Ohlrichs, C.L., Vander Zwaag, D.F., &
Ferré, L.B. (2003). Commercialization of animal biotechnology. Theriogenology, 59(1), 125-138.
Fiester, A. (2005). Ethical issues in animal cloning. Perspectives
in Biology and Medicine, 48(3), 328-343.
Finucane, M.L., & Holup, J.L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural
factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified
food: An overview of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1603-1612.
Food Standards Agency (FSA). (2009, March). An evidence
review of public attitudes to emerging food technologies. London: Food Standards Agency and Brook Lyndhurst Ltd.
Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.food.gov.uk/
multimedia/pdfs/emergingfoodtech.pdf.
FSA. (2010, August 2). FSA statement on cloned animals and
their offspring. London: Author. Available on the World Wide
Web: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2010/aug/
cloned.
Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P.,
Esmer, Y., et al. (2010b, October). Europeans and biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change? (EUR 24537EN). Brussels,
Belgium: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://
ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/
ebs_341_winds_en.pdf.
Gibbs, D., Holloway, L, Gilna, B., & Morris, C. (2009). Genetic
techniques for livestock breeding: Restructuring institutional
relationships in agriculture. Geoforum, 40(6), 1041-1049.
Gjerris, M., Lassen, J., Meyer, G., & Tveit, G. (2006). Ethical
aspects of farm animal cloning: A synthesis report. Frederiksberg, Denmark: Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment.
Hodges, J. (2010). Going beyond the limits: Genetic modification
of livestock and dissolution of ancient boundaries. Livestock
Science, 130(1-3), 3-13.
Houdebine, L.M. (2009). Production of pharmaceutical proteins
by transgenic animals. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 32(2), 107-121.
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 92
Huotilainen, A., & Tuorila, H. (2005). Social representation of
new foods has a stable structure based on suspicion and trust.
Food Quality and Preference, 16, 565-572.
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Society, Ltd (ICBF). (2007). Cattle breeding in Ireland. Irish Farmer’s Journal, August 24-30,
1-32. Available on the World Wide Web: http://
www.icbf.com/publications/files/
eaap_cattle_breeding_booklet.pdf.
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD). (2007, December). Consumer attitudes to animal welfare (A report for Freedom Food
by IGD). Hertfordshire, UK: Author.
Knight, A.J. (2005). Differential effects of perceived and objective knowledge measures on perceptions of biotechnology.
AgBioForum, 8(4), 221-227. Available on the World Wide
Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
Lambert, D.K. (2008). The expected utility of genetic information
in beef cattle production. Agricultural Systems, 99(1), 44-52.
Lonergan, P., Evans, A.C.O., Boland, E., Rizos, D., Fair, T.,
Duffy, P., et al. (2007). Pregnancy and foetal characteristics
after transfer of vitrified in vivo and cloned bovine embryos.
Theriogenology, 68(8), 1128-1137.
Madill, G. (2010). Cloned food: What it means to eat meat and
dairy from cloned animals. Washington, DC: Friends of the
Earth. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.foe.org/
healthy-people/what-it-means-eat-meat-and-dairy-cloned-animals.
McCrea, D. (2005). Risk communication related to animal products derived from biotechnology. Revue scientifique et technique [International Office of Epizootics], 24(1), 141-148.
MacFie, H. (2007). Consumer-led food product development.
Cambridge, UK: Woodhead.
Meehan, H., Cowan, C., & McIntyre, B. (2002, April). Food
choice and consumer concerns about animal welfare (Project
RIMIS No. 4543 Final Report). Dublin, Ireland: Teagasc.
Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.teagasc.ie/
research/reports/foodprocessing/4543/eopr-4543.pdf.
Meikle, J., & Phillips, L. (2010, August 3). Clone-derived meat
entered the UK food chain last year, says FSA. London:
Guardian News and Media Ltd. Available on the World Wide
Web: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/03/clone-cowsmeat-food-standards.
Miller, H.I. (2007) Food from cloned animals is part of our brave
old world. Trends in Biotechnology, 25(5), 201-203.
Minard, A. (2010, March 30). Gene-altered “enviropig” to reduce
dead zones? Des Moines, IA: National Geographic News.
Available on the World Wide Web: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropigdead-zones/.
O’Connor, E., Williams, G.A., Cowan, C., O’Connell, J., &
Boland, M.P. (2005). A snapshot of Irish public opinion on
biotechnology and GM foods at the turn of the 21st Century.
Irish Marketing Review, 17(1&2), 37-48.
Oosthoek, S. (2008). I’ll have the cloneburger and fries. New Scientist, 198(2653), 40-43.
Pascalev, A.K. (2006). We and they: Animal welfare in the era of
advanced agricultural biotechnology. Livestock Science,
103(3), 208-220.
Poulter, S. (2010, August 2). Clone farm's milk is on sale: Food
watchdog investigates after dairy farmer's astonishing admission. London: Daily Mail Online. Available on the World
Wide
Web:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1299509/Cloned-cows-milk-sale-Britain-Investigation-dairyfarmers-admission.html#ixzz1NppTAEX4.
Pursel, V., Pinkert, C., Miller, K., Bolt, D., Campbell, R., Palmiter,
R., et al. (1989). Genetic engineering of livestock. Science,
244(4910), 1281-1288.
Radaelli, C.M. (1999). Technocracy in the European Union. London: Longman.
Rosenbergen, M. (2007). Is power-Dolly our future food? Ethical
aspects of farm animal cloning. The ethical aspects of animal
cloning for food supply. Proceedings of the Round-table
Debate. Brussels, Belgium: European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission.
Shelley, M.W. (1818). Frankenstein: Or, the modern Prometheus
(1st ed.). London: Printed for Lackington, Hughes, Harding,
Mayor, and Jones.
Shepherd, R. (2008). Involving the public and stakeholders in the
evaluation of food risks. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, 234-239.
Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of
innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 19, 603-608.
Siegrist, M. (2010). Predicting the future: Review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Human and Ecological
Risk Assessment, 16, 837-846.
Suk, J., Bruce, A., Gertz, R., Warkup, C., Whitelaw, C.B.A.,
Braun, A., et al. (2007). Dolly for dinner? Assessing commercial and regulatory trends in cloned livestock. Nature Biotech,
25(1), 47-53.
Tansey, G., & D’Silva, J. (1999). The meat business: Devouring a
hungry planet (pp. 139). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Teagasc. (2008). Agriculture in Ireland [webpage]. Carlow, Ireland: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://
www.teagasc.ie/agrifood/#maincomexp.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2008, January). Animal cloning: A risk assessment. Rockville, MD: Author.
Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm055489.htm.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., & Tuyttens, F. (2009). Societal concern related to stocking density,
pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock
Science, 123(1), 16-22.
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain
AgBioForum, 14(2), 2011 | 93
Wall, R.J., Kerr, D.E., & Bondioli, K.R. (1997). Transgenic dairy
cattle: Genetic engineering on a large scale. Journal of Dairy
Science, 80(9), 2213-2224.
Wall, R., Laible, G., Maga, E., Seidel, G.E., Whitelaw, B., & Long,
C.R., et al. (2009). Animal productivity and genetic diversity:
Cloned and transgenic animals (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology [CAST] Issue Paper 43). Ames, IA:
CAST.
Wheeler, M.B. (2003). Production of transgenic livestock: Promise fulfilled. Journal of Animal Science, 81(3), 32-37.
Wrenzycki, C., Herrmann, D., Lucas-Hahn, A., Lemme, E., Korsawe, K., & Niemann, H. (2004). Gene expression patterns in
IV-produced and SCNT-derived pre-implantation bovine
embryos: Relationship to the large offspring syndrome? Animal Reproduction Science, 82/83, 593-603.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by a grant from the Technological Sector Research, Strand 1 Postgraduate R&D
Skills Programme.
Williams, G.A. (2000). A review of European agbiotech market
dynamics. AgbiotechNet, 2(ABN 056), 1-7.
Murphy, Henchion, McCarthy, & Williams — The Prospects for Acceptance of Animal Cloning in the European Food Chain