WPSII-3 Is gene edition of male pigs an acceptable alternative to surgical castration?. (7th December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yunes, M; Cardoso, C; Teixeira, D; von Keyserlingk, M; Hötzel, M
• Is Part Of: Journal of animal science. Volume 96(2018)Supplement 3
• Page Start: 515
• Page End: 516
• Publication Date: 2018-12-07
• Subjects: Pig castration -- public attitudes -- gene edition; Livestock -- Periodicals; Livestock; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 636.005
• DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky404.1128
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-8812

Abstract

Abstract: On the majority of pig farms around the world male piglets are castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration, the most commonly used procedure, induces pain and is under scrutiny by society. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology and underlying reasons using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with mixed effects logistic regression and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants that grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs was positively related to the perception of benefits (r=-0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant's perception of risks (r=-0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r=0.062, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r=0.032, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner were a major concern raised by over 30% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare benefits may increase public support of gene editing of food animals but the risks associated with the technology must also be transparent.