Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle

Autoři: Caroline Ritter aff001;  Adam Shriver aff001;  Emilie McConnachie aff001;  Jesse Robbins aff001;  Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk aff001;  Daniel M. Weary aff001
Působiště autorů: Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225372


Genetic modification has been used to create dairy cattle without horns and with increased resistance to disease; applications that could be beneficial for animal welfare, farm profits, and worker safety. Our aim was to assess how different stated purposes were associated with public attitudes toward these two applications using a mixed methods approach. Using an online survey, U.S. participants were randomly assigned to one of ten treatments in a 2 (application: hornless or disease-resistant) x 5 (purposes: improved animal welfare, reduced costs, increased worker safety, all three purposes, or no purpose) factorial design. Each participant was asked to read a short description of the assigned treatment (e.g. hornlessness to improve calf welfare) and then respond to a series of questions designed to assess attitude toward the treatment using 7-point Likert scales (1 = most negative; 7 = most positive). Responses of 957 participants were averaged to creative an attitude construct score. Participants were also asked to explain their response to the treatment. Qualitative analysis of these text responses was used to identify themes associated with the participants’ reasoning. Participant attitudes were more favorable to disease resistance than to hornlessness (mean ± SE attitude score: 4.5 ± 0.15 vs. 3.7 ± 0.14). In the ‘disease-resistance’ group participants had more positive attitudes toward genetic modification when the described purpose was animal welfare versus reduction of costs (contrast = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.12–1.88). Attitudes were less favorable to the ‘hornless’ application if no purpose was provided versus when the stated purpose was either to improve animal welfare (contrast = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.26–1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.19–1.58). Similarly, attitudes were less positive when the stated purpose was to reduce costs versus either improving animal welfare (contrast = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.09–1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.02–1.56). Quantitative and qualitative analysis indicated that both the specific application and perceived purpose (particularly when related to animal welfare) can affect public attitudes toward genetic modification.

Klíčová slova:

Animal welfare – Cattle – Genetic engineering – Genetics of disease – Livestock – Livestock care – Surveys – Veterinary diseases


1. Jaganathan D, Ramasamy K, Sellamuthu G, Jayabalan S, Venkataraman G. CRISPR for crop improvement: An update review. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9: 985. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00985 30065734

2. Petersen B. Basics of genome editing technology and its application in livestock species. Reprod Domest Anim. 2017; 52(S3): 4–13.

3. FDA. AquAdvantage Salmon Fact Sheet [Internet]. 2017. Cited 19 September 2019.

4. Shrock E, Güell M. CRISPR in animals and animal models. Progr Mol Biol Transl. 2017;152: 95.

5. Van Eenennaam AL. Genetic modification of food animals. Curr Opin Biotech. 2016;2017;44: 27–34.

6. Carlson DF, Lancto CA, Zang B, Kim ES, Walton M, Oldeschulte D, et al. Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34: 479–481. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3560 27153274

7. Wu H, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Yang M, Lv J, Liu J, et al. TALE nickase-mediated SP110 knockin endows cattle with increased resistance to tuberculosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112: E1530–1539. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1421587112 25733846

8. Liu X, Wang Y, Tian Y, Yu Y, Gao M, Hu G, et al. Generation of mastitis resistance in cows by targeting human lysozyme gene to β-casein locus using zinc-finger nucleases. Proc Biol Sci. 2014;281: 20133368. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.3368 24552841

9. AVMA. Literature review on the welfare implications of dehorning and disbudding of cattle [Internet]. 2012. Cited 19 September 2019.

10. Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Vet J. 2005; 169: 337–349. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.02.005 15848777

11. USDA. Health and management practices on U.S. dairy operations, 2014 [Internet]. 2018. Cited 19 September 2019.

12. USDA. Milk quality, milking procedures, and mastitis on U.S. dairies, 2014 [Internet]. 2016. Cited 19 September 2019.

13. Thoen C, LoBue P, de Kantor I. The importance of mycobacterium bovis as a zoonosis. Vet Microbiol. 2006;112: 339–345. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.11.047 16387455

14. 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-analysis, Trends Food Sci Tech. 2013;30:142–152.

15. Malyska A, Bolla R, Twardowski T. The role of public opinion in shaping trajectories of agricultural biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2016; 34: 530–534. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.03.005 27059762

16. Frewer LJ, Coles D, Houdebine LM, A. Kleter G. Attitudes towards genetically modified animals in food production. Br Food J [Internet]. 2014;116:1291–313.

17. Qin W, Brown JL. Factors explaining male/female differences in attitudes and purchase intention toward genetically engineered salmon. J Consum Behav. 2008;7:127–45.

18. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Hum Values. 1997;22:98–124.

19. Tenbült P, De Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. In: Appetite. 2005.45:47–50 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2005.03.004 15896875

20. Hossain F, Onyango B, Schilling B, Hallman W, Adelaja A. Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. Int J Consum Stud. 2003;27:353–65.

21. Onyango B. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods: the role of product benefits and perceived risks. J Food Distrib Res. 2004;35:154–61.

22. Bruce Traill W, Yee WMS, Lusk JL, Jaeger SR, House LO, Morrow JL Jr, et al. Perceptions of the risks and benefits of genetically-modified foods and their influence on willingness to consume. Food Econ—Acta Agric Scand Sect C. 2006;3:12–9.

23. McComas KA, Besley JC, Steinhardt J. Factors influencing U.S. consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease. Appetite. 2014;78:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006 24630937

24. Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal. Vol. 24, 2004. p. 1289–99.

25. Knight A. Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Risk Anal. 2007;27:1553–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00988.x 18093052

26. Frewer LJ, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G, et al. Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol. Vol. 22, 2011. p. 442–56.

27. Grunert KG, Lähteenmäki L, Asger Nielsen N, Poulsen JB, Ueland O, Åström A. Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification—results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Qual Prefer. 2001;12(8):527–42.

28. Lesch WC, Wachenheim CJ, Stillerud BS. Biotechnology: The healthy choice? Health Mark Q. 2005;22:59–81. doi: 10.1300/j026v22n03_05 16513601

29. Cook AJ, Kerr GN, Moore K. Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. J Econ Psychol. 2002;23:557–72.

30. McConnachie E, Hötzel MJ, Robbins J, Shriver A, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Public attitudes towards genetically modified polled cattle. PLOS One. 2019;

31. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6: 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 26162106

32. Casler K, Bickel L, Hackett E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29: 2156–2160.

33. Mason W, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 2012;44: 1–23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 21717266

34. Hallman WK, Hebden WC, Cuite CL, Aquino HL, Lang JT. American and GM food: knowledge, opinion and interest in 2004 [Internet]. 2004. Available from: doi: 10.7282/T3KW5JFP Cited 19 September 2019.

35. Herzog H, Grayson S, McCord D. Brief measures of the Animal Attitude Scale. Anthrozoös. 2015;28: 145–52.

36. American Community Survey (ACS). 1-year PUMS data [Internet]. 2017. Cited 19 September 2019.

37. DeBell M, Krosnick JA, Lupia A, Roberts C. 2009. User’s guide to the advance release of the 2008–2009 ANES Panel Study [Internet]. Cited 19 September 2019.

38. Popping R. Analyzing open-ended questions by means of text analysis procedures. Bull Methodol Sociol. 2015;128: 23–39.

39. Crabtee BF, Miller WL. Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of interpretation. In: Crabtee BF, Miller WL, editors. 2nd ed. Doing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications; 1999. pp. 163–178.

40. Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications; 1998. p. 184.

41. Cardoso CS, von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ. Brazilian citizens: Expectations regarding dairy cattle welfare and awareness of contentious practices. Animals. 2017;7: 89.

42. Wolf CA, Tonsor GT, McKendree MGS, Thomson DU, Swanson JC. Public and farmer perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in the United States. J Dairy Sci. 2016;99: 5892–5903. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10619 27179876

43. Adams JE, Highhouse S, Zickar MJ. Understanding general distrust of corporations. Corp Reput Rev. 2010;13: 38–51.

44. 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.

45. Hornsey MJ, Blackwood L, Louis W, Fielding K, Mavor K, Morton T, et al. Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2006;36: 1701–22.

46. Wan C, Shen GQ, Yu A. The role of perceived effectiveness of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2014;83: 141–51.

47. Gallup Poll. Americans’ ideological views, by year 1992–2018 [Internet]. Cited 19 September 2019.

48. Costa-Font M, Gil JM, Traill WB. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy. 2008; 33: 99–111.

49. Fernbach PM, Light N, Scott SE, Inbar Y and Rozin P. Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nat Hum Behav. 2019;3: 251–256. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0520-3 30953007

50. Ceccoli S, Hixon W. Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. IPSR. 2012;33: 301–319

51. Davey G. Chinese university students’ attitudes toward the ethical treatment and welfare of animals. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2006;9: 289–297. doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0904_4 17209753

52. Ruby MB. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite. 2012;58: 141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019 22001025

53. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. Direct versus indirect questioning: An application to the well-being of farm animals. Soc Indic Res. 2010;96: 551–565.

54. Scott SE, Inbar Y, Wirz CD, Brossard D, Rozin P. An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annu Rev Nutr. 2018;38: 459–479. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223 29801421

55. Awad A, Al-Shaye D. Public awareness, patterns of use and attitudes toward natural health products in Kuwait: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014;14.

56. Cardoso CS, Hotzel MJ, Weary DM, Robbins JA, von Keyserlingk MAG. Imagining the ideal dairy farm. J Dairy Sci. 2016;99: 1663–1671. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9925 26709190

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12