Are Gmos Dangerous to Humans Peer Reviewed Articles

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Public attitudes towards genetically modified polled cattle

• Emilie McConnachie,
• Maria Jose Hötzel,
• Jesse A. Robbins,
• Adam Shriver,
• Daniel M. Weary,
• Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk

x

• Published: May 10, 2019
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216542

Figures

Abstract

Genetic modification of subcontract animals has not been well accepted past the public. Some modifications have the potential to better animal welfare. One such example is the use of cistron editing (i.east. CRISPR (amassed regularly interspaced curt palindromic repeats)) to spread the naturally occurring POLLED gene, as these genetically hornless animals would not need to experience the painful procedures used to remove the horns or horn buds. The aim of the current study was to appraise public attitudes regarding the use of GM to produce polled cattle. United States (US) citizens (due north = 598), recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, were asked "Do you call back genetically modifying cows to exist hornless would be…", and responded using a seven-signal Likert scale (1 = a very bad thing, 4 = neither good nor bad, 7 = a very good thing). Participants were then asked to indicate if they would be willing to eat products from these modified animals. We excluded 164 of the original 598 participants for not completing the survey, failing any of three attention check questions, or providing no or unintelligible qualitative responses. Respondents were then asked to provide a written statement explaining their answers; these reasons were subjected to qualitative analysis. Comparison of Likert scale ratings between 2 groups was done using the Wilcoxon rank-sum exam, and comparisons between more than ii groups were done using the Kruskal-Wallis rank examination. More people responded that the modification would be expert (Likert ≥ 5; 65.vii%) than bad (Likert ≤ iii; 23.one%), and that they would exist willing to consume products from these animals (Likert ≥ 5; 66.0%) versus not swallow these products (Likert ≤ iii; 22.six%). Qualitative analysis of the text responses showed that participant reasoning was based on several themes including animate being welfare, uncertainty most the engineering, and worker well-existence. In conclusion, many participants reported positive attitudes towards GM polled cattle; we propose that people may be more likely to support GM technologies when these are perceived to benefit the beast.

Citation: McConnachie E, Hötzel MJ, Robbins JA, Shriver A, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk Magazine (2019) Public attitudes towards genetically modified polled cattle. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0216542. https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0216542

Editor: I. Anna Due south. Olsson, Universidade do Porto Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, PORTUGAL

Received: November 21, 2018; Accepted: April 23, 2019; Published: May x, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 McConnachie et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatsoever medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are inside the manuscript and Supporting Data files.

Funding: Hans-Sigrist-Stiftung (Grant number 10R00546 awarded to Dr. Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk), Genome British Columbia (Grant number SOC007 awarded to Dr Daniel M Weary), and Wellcome Trust (Grant number 203132/Z/xvi/Z awarded to Dr Adam Shriver). The funders had no role in study design, information collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

i. Introduction

The field of genetic applied science has been revolutionized by the development of universal designer nuclease systems that allow for precise knock-ins and knock-outs of genetic fabric (e.g. amassed regularly interspaced brusk palindromic repeats [CRISPR], transcription activator-similar effector nucleases [TALENs], and zinc finger nucleases [ZFNs]; [i]). These technologies provide users greater control over gene modifications and broaden the potential applications of genetic modification [one]. While there is currently simply ane gene modified (GM) animal canonical for consumption (AquAdvantage Salmon; [2]), research involving genetically modified agricultural animals has been ongoing for over a decade. Genetic modification of farm animals has been targeted to reduce the environmental touch of agriculture (due east.k. decreased phosphorous production from pigs; [3]), better production (e.g. increased muscle mass in cattle; [4]), raise meat quality (e.g. improved nutrient limerick in pork; [5]), and amend animate being welfare (e.m. resistance to diseases such equally avian flu in chickens; [half-dozen]).

Ane application of factor modification with the potential to do good animals is the creation of hornless dairy cattle. Dairy cattle typically grow horns, and these horns are often removed at a immature historic period using a procedure called disbudding (or dehorning if the procedure is done on older animals) with the aim of reducing the gamble of horn-related injury to workers and other animals. Horn buds can exist removed using several methods including surgical scooping and cautery [7]. Regardless of the method, in that location is evidence that calves experience considerable pain during and subsequently the procedure. This pain tin be mitigated with a local anesthetic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [vii], but just 18 to 28% of operations in the United States use pain relief when dehorning calves [8–10].

Non all cattle grow horns; a single, naturally occurring and dominant cistron (POLLED) is responsible for this hornless trait. This gene can be spread using traditionally breeding techniques, just traditional convenance is a boring process. Carlson et al. [xi] used TALENs to insert the POLLED gene into the genome of Holstein fibroblasts, resulting in the cosmos of two healthy, hornless calves. This genetic modification could provide a way to apace spread this hornless trait, eliminating the need for dehorning.

Previous work has shown public opposition to genetically modifying animals used for food (see [12] for a review) although Americans tend to be more accepting than Europeans [xiii]. Genetically modifying animals is considered less adequate than genetically modifying plants [14,fifteen] but both are widely opposed (e.chiliad. [16]). In ane survey, the public rated genetically engineering animals as the most negative of various food-technologies, including the use of pesticides and hormones [15]. At the same time, other work has shown disapproval of dehorning in the absence of hurting mitigation [17]. Thus, a genetic modification that improves welfare by eliminating the need for a painful surgery may exist perceived positively. More than generally, trivial work has examined how people evaluate factor modification methods when these accept the potential of improving animal welfare. The aims of this report were to explore public attitudes, and the underlying reasons for these attitudes, towards the use of gene modification to produce polled cattle to improve animal welfare.

2. Materials and methods

The University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (H17-01354) approved this report.

2.1. Survey sample and blueprint

Five hundred and ninety-eight US citizens were recruited to take a survey using Amazon Mechanical Turk (www.mturk.com). We excluded 42 participants for not finishing the survey, 98 participants for failing whatsoever of three attention bank check questions, and 24 participants for providing no or only unintelligible qualitative input. The final sample consisted of 434 participants.

Amazon Mechanical Turk provides a sample of individuals that are more than diverse than groups generated from standard Internet samples while maintaining comparable reliability [18–xx]. To avoid self-selection bias, participants were not informed of the specific nature of the survey prior to participating. Participants were simply asked if they would be willing to "take a survey well-nigh technology and agriculture." The survey instrument assessed familiarity, general attitudes, perceived risk, perceived benefit, willingness to consume, and knowledge of the techniques. These factors are commonly evaluated when investigating attitudes towards technology used in agronomics (e.g. [21]).

Later consenting, participants were instructed that they would be participating in a study about genetic engineering and that, "Genetic modification is the process of using biotechnology to change the genetic information (DNA) of an organism to produce a certain trait." They were and so asked three questions designed to assess their familiarity with the topic ("How much have you heard or read about…" "horn removal in cattle", "genetic modification", and "genetically modifying cows to be hornless"). Responses to all three items were collected using a 7-indicate Likert calibration (i = nothing at all, 7 = a great deal). Participants then read the following prompt:

"Nigh all dairy cattle in the U.s.a. have their horns removed because horns pose a potential danger to workers and other cattle. Typically, horn removal occurs when the animals are young and involves burning or cutting out horn-growing tissue. This procedure is painful and about 80% of the time no pain-killing drugs are used to minimize this pain. An culling to horn removal is genetically modifying cattle so that they never abound horns to brainstorm with. This method involves integrating a 'hornless' gene (which is found in some breeds of cattle) into the cow genome and results in all calves beingness born without horns."

After reading the data, participants were asked, "Do you recall genetically modifying cows to be hornless would be…" and responded using a 7-point Likert calibration (1 = a very bad thing, iv = neither good nor bad, seven = a very proficient thing). They were also asked to explicate the reason(s) for their rating in a text box. At that place was no text limit to this open-ended response.

Perceptions of risks and benefits were assessed using two items. Participants were first asked to rate how risky and beneficial they perceived genetically modifying cattle to be hornless (1 = not at all risky, 7 = very risky; 1 = not at all benign, 7 = very beneficial); no distinction was made in the prompt regarding what aspects of gene modification they viewed as existence risky or beneficial. Post-obit this we included two measures of behavioural intention. Participants were asked if they would personally exist willing to consume food products from GM hornless cattle (ane = strongly disagree, seven = strongly agree), followed by an item request them if they believed near Americans would be willing to consume these products (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). This type of indirect measure out has been used to appraise the presence of social desirability bias [22,23]. Knowledge about the process of gene modification was assessed using five items modified from Hallman et al. [24]. The number of correct responses (ranging from 0 to 6) was used to create a noesis score. Finally, participants answered a series of standard demographic questions including age, gender, education, ethnicity, political and religious affiliations, living environment (i.e. urban versus rural), and income, besides every bit some project-specific demographic questions such every bit dietary preferences, perceived importance of brute welfare, and number of times they had visited a dairy or beef farm in the by year. Upon completion, participants were debriefed, thanked, and paid $0.60.

2.two Quantitative analysis

Stata IC15.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX) was used for statistical analysis, and a P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. To assess correlations betwixt two ordinal ratings also as between measures on an ordinal and a continuous calibration, Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were calculated. Comparing of Likert scale ratings between ii groups was washed the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Z value reported), and comparison between more than two groups was washed using the Kruskal-Wallis rank exam (χ2 value reported).

ii.iii Qualitative analysis

Representational thematic text analysis was applied to the open-concluded responses [25]. Three individuals trained in qualitative inquiry read 50 randomly selected responses and independently identified the themes present in these responses. Three trained individuals (including East.G., M.J.H, and a tertiary individual, C. Cardoso) were used to minimize researcher bias and increment the likelihood that all themes present in the responses were recognized. These researchers then came together and discussed their findings, identified and debated discrepancies, and ultimately compiled a document detailing the final, agreed-upon themes. Themes were adult inductively. Afterwards developing the themes, responses were coded in batches. Showtime, two of the three authors (E.M. and Thou.J.H) independently coded approximately 20% (n = 73) of the total available responses according to these themes. Discrepancies between coding decisions were discussed and coding was finalized and repeated for this batch of responses. This process was repeated for half of the remaining responses (i.e. xl% of the original responses; north = 180), with any discrepancies resolved through discussion. Finally, E.Thou. coded the remaining 181 responses (i.e. xl% of the original responses).

iii. Results

3.one Quantitative findings

The mean (± SD) historic period of respondents was 36 (± 12) years old, 56% of respondents were male, and 80% were white. Other demographics are reported in Table 1. Compared to The states census data, the study sample was of similar age merely more educated, less religious, more than liberal, and more likely to be male and white [26–30]. Mean survey completion time was 4.9 (± 2.iii) min. A majority of respondents (eighty%) reported having heard or read "zippo" almost genetically modifying cows to exist hornless and 61% had heard or read "nothing" about the do of dehorning cows.

In total, 66% of participants responded that genetically modifying cattle to exist hornless was a adept thing (Likert ≥ 5; Fig 1) and 66% of participants indicated they were willing to consume products from cattle genetically modified to be hornless (Likert ≥ v; Fig ii). Twenty-three percent of participants responded that this gene modification was a bad thing (Likert ≤ 3; Fig ane) and 23% said they were not willing to consume these products (Likert ≤ three; Fig 2).

Fig i.

Participant (n = 434) responses regarding (A) attitudes and (B) perceived risk of genetically modified polled cows. Attitudes were adamant from the question "Do you think genetically modifying cows to be hornless would be…". Perceived risk was assessed by request "How risky do you think genetically modifying cows to be hornless is?".

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216542.g001

Fig 2. Participant (n = 434) responses regarding willingness to consume products from genetically modified polled cows.

Willingness to consume was determined past asking participants "Delight tell usa how much yous hold or disagree with the following statements" followed by questions stating " I am willing to eat food products from cows genetically modified to exist hornless" (Cocky-reported) and " Well-nigh Americans are willing to consume nutrient products from cows genetically modified to be hornless" (Average American).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216542.g002

Mean (± SD) mental attitude was 4.nine (± 1.ix). Self-reported willingness to consume was too iv.nine (± 1.9), and these 2 measures were positively correlated (r_southward = 0.77, p < 0.001). Self-reported willingness to swallow and the participant's judgment of "Most Americans" willingness to consume (Hateful: 5.0 ± 1.4) were as well positively correlated (r_s = 0.40, p < 0.001).

Overall, participants perceived lower risks (Mean = iii.8 ± 1.9) than benefits (Mean = 4.8 ± 1.eight) of genetically modifying cattle to exist hornless. Risk and benefit perceptions were negatively correlated (r_s = -0.64, p < 0.001). Perceived benefits were associated with positive attitudes (r_s = 0.83, p < 0.001) and greater willingness to consume (r_s = 0.68, p < 0.001); whereas, perceived risks were associated with negative attitudes (r_southward = -0.72, p < 0.001) and lesser willingness to consume (r_{due south} = -0.73, p < 0.001).

On average, participants answered 4 of the five genetics noesis questions correctly. Higher scores on the cognition questions were associated with more than positive attitudes (r_{due south} = 0.16, p < 0.001) and greater willingness to consume (r_s = 0.17, p < 0.001). Attitudes varied in relation to gender, with males tending to concord more positive attitudes (z = ii.vi, p = 0.01) and greater willingness to consume (z = four.three; p < 0.001). Religious participants tended to concur more negative attitudes (z = ane.8, p = 0.08) and expressed lower willingness to consume (z = 4.0, p < 0.001). Participant age was negatively associated with their attitudes (r_s = -0.11; p = 0.02) and willingness to eat (r_south = -0.xiii; p = 0.005). Political affiliation was non associated with mental attitude, but was with to willingness to swallow (χ² with ties = 6.one, 2 df, p = 0.049), with liberals having the highest mental attitude scores. Neither attitude nor willingness to consume were associated with income, education, region, whether the participant had visited a subcontract, or living surround (all p's > 0.05); these factors are not discussed further.

iii.two Qualitative results

X themes emerged from the open-ended questions. In social club of prevalence, these themes were 1) animal welfare, ii) uncertainty towards engineering, three) worker well-being, 4) moral considerations, 5) trade-off perspective, 6) seeks culling, seven) naturalness, 8) opposition to GM, ix) economics, and ten) consumption (Table 2). All themes were raised among all response types (back up, neutral, oppose) though some themes were more prominent amidst certain response types than others (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Attitude prevalence within themes.

Attitudes were calculated from responses to a question "Do y'all think genetically modifying cows to be hornless would be…" and responded using a 7-betoken Likert calibration (1 = a very bad thing, 7 = a very practiced thing). For graphical purposes responses were categorized every bit positive [5–seven], neutral [4], and negative [i–3].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216542.g003

iii.two.1 Animal welfare.

Responses in the theme "beast welfare" discussed factors such as hurting, quality of life, humane treatment, health, and affect. A consideration of many participants was the painfulness of dehorning and the humaneness of the procedure (due east.g. "Certainly [cattle] must feel the pain when their horns are removed. It would therefore exist a civilised and humane action to genetically modify the cows to be born hornless, to spare this them unnecessary hurting" [R320]). Others considered the welfare impacts of GM polled cattle on other animal welfare and safety issues, for example, "the cattle are being bred for a purpose… if [GM] keeps workers safe as well as other cattle–go for it" [R160]. Some respondents did non hash out specific aspects of welfare, but rather considered the animal's general quality of life (e.g. "nosotros might as well make their lives a little amend" [R133]). The affect of dehorning on cattle health was discussed past some participants (eastward.g. "removing [horns] opens up routes to infection" [R215]) and the impact of factor modification on cattle health was discussed past others (e.g. "I feel this is a modification that would be skilful for the health of the cattle" [R212] and "with genetically modifying animals, we don't truly know what kind of side effects may happen to the long term wellness of [the] creature" [R305]). At that place were as well participants who considered the inherent value of the horns to cattle (e.g. "I would worry about [cattle] losing any potential benefits to having horns" [R273]).

three.2.2 Doubtfulness towards applied science.

The theme "uncertainty towards technology" included responses that directly expressed some aspects of business concern towards gene modification or biotechnology including a want for more testing, a fearfulness of consequences, or other measures of wariness. The potential for unintended side effects was often discussed (eastward.grand. "you lot never know, but in that location is ever a possibility of unintended consequences somewhere down the road" [R418]). A desire for more than testing was a commonly expressed (e.thousand. "if it can be proven that there are no harmful side effects to the breed then I recall information technology is OK" [R121] and "I recall at that place needs to be rounds and rounds of testing before it becomes the norm" [R62]). The general efficacy of factor editing technologies was discussed (e.g. "Sometimes you can actually botch a genome when yous splice in DNA, and changing something as desperate as whether or not [cows] have horns sounds similar quite the undertaking." [R165]).

3.ii.3 Trade-off perspective.

This theme encompassed responses that considered both positive and negative aspects of genetically modifying polled cows. These responses "saw both sides" of the proposal by considering arguments for information technology and against it. For example, R372 says, "It would be a convenience for dairy workers, merely I don't think it'south safe to alter the genes of animals without agreement how information technology might affect them in the hereafter". Here, R372 discusses both the benefit to the workers (a positive consideration) and their uncertainty about the technology and long-term animate being well-being (negative considerations). Worker well-being, doubts well-nigh technology, and animal welfare are thus all themes nowadays in this response. These trade-off analyses provide unique insight into the idea process of respondents every bit well equally the propensity to critically recollect and evaluate multiple sides of an argument. Although respondents touched on other themes through their trade-off evaluation, as exemplified in a higher place, almost every response in this theme discussed animal welfare, uncertainty towards technology, opposition to GM, and moral considerations were present in approximately a quarter of responses. Overall, participants who vicious into this theme displayed critical thinking and expressed a diverse set up of thoughts.

three.2.four Worker's well-being.

Many participants considered the safety of workers to exist of import (e.g. "Information technology would nevertheless accomplish what is needed to be done for safety reasons, but without harm/pain to the animal" [R337]). Some respondents thought management should be altered, so that cattle do not need to be dehorned or genetically modified to improve worker safety (eastward.g. "it doesn't change the root cause of the problem, which is that factory farming is dangerous to the animals and workers" [R351]). Many respondents discussed the reduction in work that GM polled cattle would provide farmers (e.g. "information technology would prevent extra work involved with having to remove the horns in young cattle" [R178] and "it would relieve dairy cattle workers time and energy" [R200]).

3.ii.5 Moral considerations.

The theme encompassing upstanding qualms, religious considerations, ideas of right and incorrect, and other moral ideas was collectively called "moral considerations" (Tabular array two). Responses in this theme touched on a vast array of ideas, from plant vs. animal considerations ("I can understand when it comes to plants, but animals are conscious, and it doesn't experience morally right for me to support that." [R353]), to discussion of overextended human power ("I recall it is 'playing God' and is immoral and unethical" [R184]), to consideration of duty to animals ("if we were to make [meat production] fifty-fifty slightly less painful for the animals, [animal agriculture] would be less ethically reprehensible" [R345]). Many participants noted that this "seemed incorrect" or "felt wrong" with further caption.

3.2.half-dozen Seek alternative.

The "seek alternative" theme included responses where a want for an culling option to the current dehorning practices or using genetic modification to produce polled cattle was discussed. This theme had three popular responses: i) a direct questioning of electric current dehorning practices ("I do question the practise of cut the horns off at all. Could they non observe a different solution?" [R44]), 2) a desire to non remove the horns ("In an ideal world, we would exit the cows and their horns lonely, menses." [R422]), and iii) a preference for legally enforcing the use of hurting mitigating drugs during dehorning surgery ("I think instead it would be more beneficial to legally require the use of pain killing drugs for horn removal." [R30]). Some participants discussed a preference for selectively convenance polled cattle ("I can understand breeding the [horned] cows to hornless cows then that farther downward the line, they all become hornless" [R189]). Other responses discussed a preference for eliminating manufactory farming ("information technology's definitely treating the symptom rather than the disease of animal manufacturing plant farming, so it seems like a waste of resources and a lark away from the real issues of animal agronomics" [R153]), and changing management styles ("animals should not be contradistinct to make information technology easier for humans to manage. Humans should determine safer ways to handle these animals, should they keep to be farmed for consumption" [R316]).

iii.2.seven Naturalness.

A number of respondents discussed nature, natural processes like development, and naturalness in their responses. Information technology was common for participants in this category to appeal to nature as being the reason for their before responses ("it is unnatural" [R186] and "We should non be interfering with nature in such a way. In that location will well-nigh likely be grave consequences." [R128]). Others noted "unnaturalness" but did not object to this (e.thou. "It seems then unnatural to me to do this to the cows only I do not believe something beingness unnatural is a 'bad' affair." [R170]). Some participants discussed the being of the hornless cistron in non-GM cows (east.chiliad. "I am generally dubious of genetic modification, only in this case, we're just using genes cows already have and putting them in ALL cows" [R207]). Domestication and selective breeding were talked about as well (e.m. "I don't encounter any particular reason not to do this… cows have been domesticated to such a big extent, over such a large period of time, that at that place'south actually nothing left natural about them to begin with… I don't see whatever trouble with it" [R46]). Lastly, some people discussed development (e.m. "I think development should tell us what a animate being should be and look like, and nosotros shouldn't play with that only to suit our industries or plans" [R39]).

iii.2.8 Opposition to GM.

The themes "opposition to GM", "doubtfulness towards applied science", and "seek alternatives" all suggested some discontent with cistron modification. "Opposition to cistron modification" was the most straight labelling of this dissatisfaction. Some respondents in this category solely considered opposition towards gene modification to explain their mental attitude towards GM polled cattle, such as Respondent 125 who said "modifying the Dna of annihilation is a very bad idea". Others held their opposition to be i of multiple considerations; for example, "I'yard non onboard with genetic modification normally, merely to do so in order for the animal not to be in pain" [R138].

three.2.9 Economic science.

Some participants mentioned efficiency or finances in regards to the genetically modified polled cattle. Genetically modifying cows to be polled was considered more efficient than dehorning them by some participants (e.g. "rather than putting the cows through the pain and having someone accept to cut a horn and possibly feel bad, it would only be more efficient to change the genes" [R150]). Some participants felt that producers and consumers would do good financially from these animals through reduced labor and dehorning costs (due east.g. "Thinking well-nigh it economically, the dairy cattle that are genetically modified to be hornless would automatically non require labor and capital to dehorn the cattle" [R26] and "not having [dehorning] would also reduce the cost (in man-hours and tools) of each head, and hopefully reduce the consumer's cost" [R57]). However, other participants thought GM polled cows might exist economically challenging ("Genetically modifying the animals sounds like it will be expensive" [R44]).

3.two.ten Consumption.

Many responses expressed concerns relating to the condom of milk and beef products derived from the GM polled dairy cattle (e.g. "Genetically modifying cows… may cause unknown side-effects which could potentially be harmful for the animal and the consumer of the animate being" [R137] and "will the cow'southward milk or meat exist fit for human consumption?" [R390]). Food quality was discussed, especially in regards to the taste of milk and meat products, every bit was the nutritional value of the food products (e.g. "could [genetic modification] modify the taste or nutritional content of the milk produced?" [R160]).

4. Discussion

Previous enquiry has investigated public perceptions regarding GM animals, but not in regards to specific applications of cistron modification that have the potential to better fauna welfare. The current written report provides the commencement exploration of perceptions towards GM polled cattle. When positioned from the perspective that this applied science could eliminate the demand for a painful procedure, participants in this study expressed predominantly positive attitudes towards. This finding contrasts previous work showing predominantly negative attitudes towards gene modification of animals [xiii,15,16,31–33]. Every bit previous piece of work has noted [34], risk and benefit perceptions were inversely related, and many of our participants perceived moderate to loftier benefits, arguably because they believed that animal welfare would be improved in the GM polled cattle.

The open-ended responses of our participants provide some insight into their reasoning, merely no one theme was exclusive to any ane attitude (or vice-versa). Animal welfare was the nearly commonly expressed theme and included concern for farm animal emotional and physical well-being likewise every bit the desire to promote better fauna welfare. This result aligns with other enquiry suggesting that the public values subcontract beast welfare [35,36]. Many participants described current dehorning practices as inhumane, cruel, or painful for the animals; disapproval of dehorning without pain mitigation was also reported by Robbins et al. [17].

Ordinarily perceived risks of genetically modified food products include unknown long-term or unintended effects on consumer health, fauna welfare, and the environment [13]. The open up-ended responses indicated that our participants perceived these risks, although concerns for environmental touch were less often expressed. As noted in previous studies on attitudes towards GM foods, participants often expressed concerns about the impact of GM on animal welfare and humans consuming products from these animals [12,thirteen,36]. There was clear want for long-term testing on GM polled cattle to provide better data on the potential effects the GM could accept on both humans and animals.

Some participants discussed the concept of naturalness, moral dilemmas, and ethical reasoning in their responses. The "unnaturalness" of cistron modification has been previously noted every bit a ground for, and predictor of, objection to gene modification [37–39]. Nonetheless, this statement remains contentious given that in that location is no clear consensus on what the argument of unnaturalness entails (see [40] for an overview). Some participants noted moral objections like to those found in other studies, such as the thought that genetically modifying animals reinforces the idea that livestock are instruments for human use [41] and that humans should not "play God" [42]. Respondents also suggested that farmers have a duty of care to minimize animate being pain and suffering, through either gene modification or alternative management. A similar finding was noted past Cardoso et al. [43]; participants in that study viewed farmers as failing in their duty of intendance towards the cow if they did not provide cows protection from oestrus stress.

Many of our respondents seemed to recognize both benefits and risks to the technology, with some detailed responses illustrating how people struggle with this merchandise-off. Cardoso et al. [43] also found bear witness of participants because such trade-offs when they considered unlike dairy cattle housing scenarios that emphasised different aspects of animal welfare (i.e. pasture equally beingness more natural, and indoor housing being able to protect animals from heat stress); participants were more supportive of the scenario that was less 'natural' if this prevented heat stress.

Presenting a specific example of a GM animal to participants may provide more practical insight into public perceptions than asking participants near GM animals in general. Much of the existing literature evaluates perceptions towards "GM animals" in an abstract manner—investigating perceptions about the idea of GM animals rather than perceptions virtually specific applications. Here, an explicit example of GM animals and information on why this gene modification is relevant was provided to participants. Our approach likely allowed participants to more specifically evaluate the GM animal and, consequently, express attitudes that better represent how the cistron modification of interest would actually be perceived if it were to progress into the food chain. Even so, every bit discussed above, many participants showed nuanced thinking, identifying numerous themes and considerations in their responses.

Studies exploring public attitudes may be subject to social desirability and self-pick biases. Social desirability bias can result in information that is skewed to evidence greater acceptance among participants than there actually is. To try to control for this, participants were asked what they idea of "Near Americans'" willingness to consume, equally this approach shifts the social consequences of the participant's response to someone else [22]. This question served as a measure out that could be compared confronting the participant-focused willingness to consume question. The similarity in self-reported willingness to swallow and the participants' judged of the willingness of "Most Americans" suggests that social desirability bias was minimal.

This study has a number of limitations. Outset, participants were recruited via Mechanical Turk. Although this provides a useful convenience sample, the results should not be considered representative on a regional or national scale. Amazon Mechanical Turk provides a practical, price-constructive, and efficient way to gather a diverse grouping, but the survey sample is not representative of the American public, so care is required in making inferences regarding a wider population. Second, when the survey was distributed, the USDA's most recent dairy report on cattle management [x] had not been released and thus other sources were used [8,9,44] to deduce the prevalence of producers using hurting mitigation during dehorning. Thus, participants were informed that 20% of producers use of pain mitigating strategies during dehorning, which is lower than the virtually contempo USDA report of 28% of producers. Reporting this somewhat higher number may take softened opposition to existing practice, and thus fabricated participants less accepting of the GM culling. Lastly, information technology is important to notation that authors all work on the topic of brute welfare; this is likely to have influenced the tone of this manuscript and the management of our enquiry.

v. Decision

The majority of participants reported positive attitudes towards GM polled cattle and a willingness to consume products from these animals. Participants often discussed bug related to animal welfare in support of their views. These results advise that participants may be more likely to support GM technologies when these are perceived to do good beast welfare.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Caroline Ritter, UBC Fauna Welfare Plan, for her insightful comments on a previous version of this manuscript, Paige McDonald, UBC Animal Welfare Program for her help with the figures and Dr. Clarissa Cardoso from the Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil for her assistance with the qualitative analyses.

References

1. 1. Gupta RM, Musunuru K. Expanding the genetic editing tool kit: ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR-Cas9. J Clin Invest. 2014;124: 4154–4161. pmid:25271723
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. U.Southward. Food & Drug Administration. AquAdvantage salmon fact sheet. 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 15]. Available from: https://world wide web.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm473238.htm.
3. 3. Golovan SP, Meidinger RG, Ajakaiye A, Cottrill M, Wiederkehr MZ, Barney DJ, et al. Pigs expressing salivary phytase produce low-phosphorus manure. Nat Biotechnol. 2001;19: 741–745. pmid:11479566
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Luo J, Song Z, Yu Southward, Cui D, Wang B, Ding F, et al. Efficient generation of myostatin (MSTN) biallelic mutations in cattle using zinc finger nucleases. PLoS ONE. 2014;ix: e95225. pmid:24743319
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Niemann H. Transgenic pigs expressing plant genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101: 7211–7212. pmid:15128943
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Lyall J, Irvine RM, Sherman A, McKinley TJ, Núñez A, Purdie A, et al. Suppression of avian influenza transmission in genetically modified chickens. Science. 2011;331: 223–226. pmid:21233391
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. seven. Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its consolation in calves. Vet J. 2005;169: 337–349. pmid:15848777
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Hoe FGH, Ruegg PL. Opinions and practices of Wisconsin dairy producers about biosecurity and animal well-being. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89: 2297–2308. pmid:16702297
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. ix. Fulwider WK, Grandin T, Rollin BE, Engle TE, Dalsted NL, Lamm WD. Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen n primal and northeastern United States dairies. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91: 1686–1692. pmid:18349262
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
10. ten. United States Section of Agronomics. Dairy 2014 Health and management practices on U.S. dairy operations, 2014. 2018 [cited 2018 November 20]. Available from: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy14/Dairy14_dr_PartIII.pdf.
11. eleven. Carlson DF, Lancto CA, Zang B, Kim ES, Walton M, Oldeschulte D, et al. Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited jail cell lines. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34: 479–481. pmid:27153274
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, et al. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—A systematic review and meta-assay. Trends Nutrient Sci Technol. 2013;30: 142–152.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Frewer LJ, Coles D, Houdebine LM, Kleter GA. Attitudes towards genetically modified animals in nutrient product. Br Food J. 2014;116: 1291–1313.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane Yard, Slovic P. Practiced and public perception of take chances from biotechnology. Gamble Anal. 2004;24: 1289–1299. pmid:15563295
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Henson S, Annou Chiliad, Cranfield J, Ryks J. Agreement consumer attitudes toward nutrient technologies in Canada. Risk Anal. 2008;28: 1601–1617. pmid:18808396
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Cuite CL, Aquino HL, Hallman WK. An empirical investigation of the part of cognition in public opinion nearly GM food. Int J Biotechnol. 2005;vii: 178–194.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Robbins JA, Weary DM, Schuppli CA, von Keyserlingk MAG. Stakeholder views on treating pain due to dehorning dairy calves. Anim Welf. 2015;24: 399–406.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Buhrmester Yard, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, information? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;half-dozen: 3–five. pmid:26162106
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. xix. Stonemason Due west, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 2012;44: ane–23. pmid:21717266
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
20. twenty. Casler K, Bickel 50, Hackett E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon'south MTurk, social media, and contiguous behavioral testing. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29: 2156–2160.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R. Public concerns in the Uk nearly general and specific applications of genetic technology: Take chances, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Human Values. 1997;22: 98–124. pmid:11654686
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. Direct versus indirect questioning: An application to the well-being of farm animals. Soc Indic Res. 2010;96: 551–565.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Brooks KR, Lusk JL. U.S. consumers attitudes toward subcontract beast cloning. Appetite. 2011;57: 483–492. pmid:21736907
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Hallman WK, Hebden WC, Cuite CL, Aquino HL, Lang JT. Americans and GM food: Cognition, opinion and interest in 2004. New Brunswick (NJ):Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Food Policy Institute; 2004 November Report No. RR-1104-007.
25. 25. Popping R. Analyzing open-ended questions by ways of text analysis procedures. Bull Methodol Sociol. 2015;128: 23–39.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Huff C, Tingley D. "Who are these people?" Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Res Polit. 2015;2: 1–12.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Lewis AR, Djupe PA, Mockabee ST, Su-Ya Wu J. The (Non) religion of mechanical turk workers. J Sci Report Relig. 2015;54: 419–428.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. United States Census Bureau. Educational attainment in the The states: 2016. 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 20]. Bachelor from: https://www.demography.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/education-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html.
29. 29. United states Census Bureau. Quick facts. 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 20]. Available from: https://world wide web.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/United states of america/PST045217.
30. thirty. United States Census Bureau. Annual estimates of the resident population by single twelvemonth of age and sexual activity for the United States, States, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth: April one, 2010 to July 1, 2016. 2017 [cited 2018 Nov xx]. Available from: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Wachenheim CJ, Lesch WC. Northward Dakota shopper perceptions of genetically modified organisms and food: Results of a winter 2003 survey. Fargo (ND): North Dakota Country Academy, Section of Agribusiness and Practical Economics; 2004 AAE Report No. 540.
32. 32. Qin Due west, Chocolate-brown JL. Factors explaining male/female person differences in attitudes and buy intention toward genetically engineered salmon. J Consum Behav. 2008;7: 127–145.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Wachenheim CJ, Nganje WE, Lesch WC. Comparison of perception of gamble and willingness to consume GM foods. Fargo (ND): North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics; 2008 AAE Report No. 621.
34. 34. Zepeda L, Douthitt R, Yous SY. Consumer run a risk perceptions toward agricultural biotechnology, self-protection, and food demand: The instance of milk in the United States. Take chances Anal. 2003;23: 973–984. pmid:12969412
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Prickett RW, Norwood FB, Lusk JL. Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: Results from a phone survey of Usa households. Anim Welf. 2010;xix: 335–347.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Clark B, Stewart GB, Panzone LA, Kyriazakis I, Frewer LJ. A Systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2016;29: 455–478.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Macnaghten P. Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and 'nature'. Folklore. 2004;38: 533–551.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Sjöberg L. Principles of run a risk perception applied to gene applied science. EMBO Rep. 2004;5: S47–51. pmid:15459735
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Tenbült P, de Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Ambition. 2005;45: 47–50. pmid:15896875
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Naturalness Verhoog H. and the genetic modification of animals. Trends Biotechnol. 2003;21: 294–297. pmid:12837612
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Natural Pivetti G. and unnatural: Activists' representations of animal biotechnology. New Genet Soc. 2007;26: 137–157.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Gott M, Monamy V. Ethics and transgenesis: Toward a policy framework incorporating intrinsic objections and societal perceptions. Altern Lab Anim. 2004;32(Suppl 1A): 391–396.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Cardoso CS, von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ, Robbins J, Weary DM (2018) Hot and bothered: Public attitudes towards heat stress and outdoor access for dairy cows. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0205352. pmid:30379867
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. United States Department of Agriculture. Dairy 2007, Part Iv: Reference of dairy cattle health and direction practices in the United States, 2007. 2009 [cited 2018 November 20]. Available from: https://world wide web.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy07/Dairy07_dr_PartIV.pdf.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

greenhathouty.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0216542

Share this post