Animal welfare: Government response to FAWC's report on the implications of cloning for the welfare of farmed livestock
Introduction
In 1997, Edinburgh's Roslin Institute produced a cloned sheep - named Dolly - by nuclear transfer of material derived from an adult mammary cell. This sparked a public debate on cloning. It was this public concern that led Ministers in MAFF, Defra's predecessor, to ask FAWC to consider the welfare implications of cloning farm animals. FAWC was also asked to advise whether the techniques used raised any moral or ethical issues in regard to farm animal welfare. In December 1998, FAWC issued a report on the 'Implications of Cloning for the Welfare of Farmed Livestock' and made many recommendations. Since then, the technology has moved on, but at a slower pace than was perhaps anticipated. We are, for example, still a long way from producing commercially cloned farm animals.
A copy of the full FAWC report and its recommendations is available on FAWC's website at www.fawc.org.uk or a hard copy can be obtained from the FAWC Secretariat.
The Government attaches great importance to the recommendations of FAWC. The progress made to date in responding to these recommendations is outlined below.
Recommendation 1
FAWC found no aspect of the ethical aspects of cloning by nuclear transfer intrinsically objectionable to the extent that it might be considered something that should not be done at all. However, it also recognised that this technology might, in the absence of suitable controls, result in significant insult to the nature and welfare of the animals involved and recommended that the general principles as prescribed by the Banner Committee should be accepted as a framework within which present and future uses of animals should be assessed. These are:
(a) Harms of a certain degree and kind ought under no circumstances to be inflicted upon an animal.
(b) Any harm to an animal, even if not absolutely impermissible, nonetheless requires justification and must be outweighed by the good which is realistically sought in so treating it.
(c) Any harm which is justified by the second principle ought, however, to be minimised as far as is reasonably possible.
The Government welcomes FAWC's view that cloning is ethically acceptable, providing it is carried out within the framework of the general principles laid down in the Banner Committee's report of 1995, which considered the 'Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals'. This reiterates the Government's view that all animals (whether domestic, farmed or used for scientific purposes) should be kept to the highest possible welfare standards.
Recommendation 2
FAWC considered the welfare implications of the procedures involved, and concluded that it is most important that in nuclear transfer, the recipient dam must be of an appropriate size in relation to the size of offspring to be produced. It also recommended that regulations should be introduced requiring the suitability of the dam to be certified by a veterinary surgeon in a manner similar to that required in embryo transfer.We agree with FAWC that in nuclear transfer, the recipient dam should be of an appropriate size to the size of offspring produced. This advice applies equally to traditional breeding methods.
Procedures that incubate early embryos in in vitro culture can result in foetuses that are oversized or deformed. This is true for conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) as it is for cloned embryos. The causes have been investigated in MAFF/Defra - funded research and are becoming better understood. An outcome of that research has been the development of a diagnostic test capable of identifying embryos that have the potential to become oversized, allowing veterinary surgeons to avoid using them for transplantation. It is expected that this test will be generally available in the near future.
Since the FAWC report was published, a significant piece of welfare legislation has been introduced, which addresses the first part of this recommendation. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000 No. 1870) (WOFAR), (which implements Council Directive 98/58/EC) includes for the first time specific provisions on breeding procedures. Paragraphs 28 and 29 of Schedule 1 of WOFAR cover both natural and artificial breeding procedures. They state:
'28. - (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), natural or artificial breeding or breeding procedures which cause, or are likely to cause, suffering or injury to any of the animals concerned shall not be practised.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not preclude the use of natural or artificial breeding procedures that are likely to cause minimal or momentary suffering or injury or that might necessitate interventions which would not cause lasting injury.
29. No animals shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without detrimental effect on their health or welfare.'
Turning to the second part of this recommendation, the commercial use of nuclear transfer would be a procedure that would need to be carried out by a veterinary surgeon. This invasive procedure would fall under the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the veterinary surgeon would take the suitability of the dam into consideration before carrying out nuclear transfer.
Recommendation 3
FAWC identified three key areas for further research:
-
a greater understanding of the underlying causes of oversized offspring, especially of the effects of in vitro culture on fetal size.
-
the causes of embryonic and fetal deaths and of perinatal losses and birth abnormalities associated with nuclear transfer, and the scale of these problems; and
-
into the long-term effects of nuclear transfer of aged DNA before the technique is considered suitable in agricultural practice.
Whilst there are potential welfare benefits from using techniques such as nuclear transfer in, for example, producing animals resistant to disease, we recognise they can pose welfare problems and in extreme circumstances, physical deformities. The same criticism can, of course, be applied to traditional breeding techniques, but the process could happen much faster where some of these newer techniques are applied.
The causes for oversized offspring are now better understood, having been shown to be based on faulty imprinting of genes associated with the expression of growth factors. While these errors cannot presently be avoided, it allows embryos carrying the faulty imprinting to be excluded from further development.
Although it is likely that similar errors of gene imprinting on other genetic traits will be shown to be associated with other developmental problems of cloned animals, Defra are not supporting research into this as cloned farm livestock are not considered to be of relevance to the future of sustainable livestock farming in the UK.
Recommendation 4
FAWC made an overriding recommendation that, until the problems of oversized offspring, embryonic and fetal losses and birth abnormalities, and the possibility of problems associated with aged DNA, have been satisfactorily resolved, there should be a moratorium on the use of cloning by nuclear transfer in commercial agricultural practice.
There are no plans to clone farm animals commercially. We, therefore, do not agree with the need for an immediate moratorium on the commercial use of cloning by nuclear transfer. We will keep the situation under review as the technology advances.
Recommendation 5
FAWC were concerned to learn that, in the current practice of nuclear transfer in sheep, oocytes are cultured in vivo. This involves the accrued stress of a surgical procedure with recovery followed by killing of some animals. Whilst accepting that the number of animals involved is small, they nevertheless believed that surgical intervention of animals used for in vivo culture with subsequent killing should be avoided. Further research is required to minimise stress in, and avoid wastage of, such animals. Research should also be undertaken to develop in vitro culture methods.
During the development phase of cloning technologies for sheep, it was found that in vitro cultivation of embryos in cell culture was much less effective than in vivo cultivation, in temporary recipients. New research from Australia and New Zealand suggests that the problems of in vitro cultivation have now been overcome. This would avoid the requirement to use ewes other than those supplying the oocytes.
Recommendation 6
FAWC have identified the need for a new regulatory structure and therefore recommend that, before cloning is permitted in commercial agricultural practice, legislative controls must be introduced. These must include:
a) regulations to give protection to cloned farmed livestock similar to that enjoyed by research animals, at least until the effects of the cloning and any associated genetic manipulation have been scientifically evaluated in the environment of commercial agricultural practice
b) regulations to ensure the procedure is carried out under direct veterinary supervision by adequately trained personnel.
On point a) and as mentioned in the response to FAWC's recommendation 2, there are now the provisions in the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 to address the welfare concerns arising from both natural and artificial breeding procedures.
In addition, we have recently carried out a public consultation on a proposed Animal Welfare Bill, which would consolidate and bring up-to-date the numerous legislation that exists in England and Wales to promote the welfare of farmed, domestic and captive animals. One of the ideas put forward in the consultation paper was that the mis-use of bio-technology in animal breeding be covered by the Bill and comments were invited as to what the particular problems and offences might be and how legislation could deal with them. One of the questions posed in the consultation document was whether it should be an offence for breeders to produce an animal which will not be used for scientific research or medical purposes that is likely to be genetically defective in some way? FAWC's recommendation will have an input into this exercise. Having considered all the comments received, Ministers will then decide on whether to proceed and, if so, a draft Bill will be prepared.
Another development to emerge since the FAWC report was published has been the establishment of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC). It was set up in June 2000 to provide independent, strategic advice on developments in biotechnology and their implications for agriculture and the environment. One of the Commission's sub-groups was charged with considering how well current and likely future questions about animals and biotechnology, including cloning, could be answered by the current regulatory and advisory machinery. The report and its recomendations were published in September 2002.
On point b), the commercial use of cloning would be classified as an invasive procedure and thus be covered by the Veterinary Surgeons Act. Only a veterinary surgeon could carry out the procedure.
Recommendation 7
A further aspect of good welfare lies in controlling the competence of those who carry out procedures. FAWC recommends that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be consulted to explore the feasibility of any of the procedures involved in cloning by nuclear transfer which are "acts of veterinary surgery" being suitable for delegation to a trained lay operator who has attended an appropriate course and has been assessed for competency.
As the commercial cloning of farmed animals is still a long way off, we do not have to take immediate action. If it was decided that certain procedures involved in cloning by nuclear transfer might be suitable for delegation to a trained lay technician, then we would, of course, consult with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on which procedures could be delegated. We would also consult on the required training programme and on the suitability of potential training providers. If we go down this route, then we would need to introduce an Exemption Order to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, to permit lay persons to carry out the procedures.
Recommendation 8
FAWC recognises the importance of good stockmanship and recommend that stockpeople responsible for the care of animals which arise from cloning must be sufficiently trained and competent to attend to any particular requirements of such animals.
We totally agree with this recommendation. Good stockmanship is the single most important influence on the welfare of farmed livestock. Those responsible for farm management should make sure that animals are cared for by competent staff, who are aware of the welfare needs of their animals and are capable of protecting them from all expected problems before they are given any responsibility.
Recommendation 9
FAWC considers that loss of genetic diversity may have a deleterious impact on welfare. It recommends that an effective system of control of cloning by nuclear transfer, or similar means, must be implemented to ensure that genetic diversity is maintained and other adverse effects prevented. Such control may need to be statutory and should ensure that proper breeding records of any animal produced by such cloning are maintained for several generations.
We recognise that genetic diversity - maintaining a wide gene pool - is vital for the development of sustainable agriculture long-term, to ensure that we retain stock which can thrive in all current and future environments. We agree that controls may be necessary in the future should cloned animals be available in commercial agricultural practice. However, we do not believe that it is currently necessary, neither will it be for sometime in the future. We will keep the situation under review. In the meantime, however, the Government encourages the industry to take responsibility for the future development of their industry by keeping proper breeding records which can be made available for inspection.
Defra is currently preparing a UK chapter for the State of the World Report of the FAO Farm Animal Genetic Resources initiative. This will give extensive information about stocks of agricultural livestock breeds present in the UK, what is known about their genetic makeup and how they are being conserved and promoted. Once the report is completed, the intention is for each country to use their chapter as the basis on which to develop a national biodiversity strategy for farmed livestock.
Recommendation 10
FAWC considers that implementation of these recommendations will extend over a period of several years during which emerging information will need to be evaluated. It therefore recommends that a National Standing Committee should be established to oversee the development of cloning technology. The Committee should review outputs of research aimed at tackling the welfare problems identified in this report (and any other problems which may emerge); it should determine the time when it may be appropriate to introduce cloning into commercial agricultural practice; and it should ensure that the controls by then in place are both adequate and effectively implemented.
In AEBC's recent report, examining how well current and likely future questions about animals and biotechnology could be answered by the current regulatory and advisory framework (see response to FAWC recommendation 6), the ABEC also recommends that a new strategic advisory body should be set up. The report recommends that the body not only examines cloning but issues raised by the use of all genetic biotechnology on farm animals.
Whilst we do not rule out the establishment of some kind of National Standing Committee to oversee the development of cloning technology, we do not think that it is required at the moment.
Recommendation 11
FAWC recognises that the advances in this and similar technologies are taking place around the world and there is a need for international guidelines. We therefore recommend that liaison at an international level should be established to ensure that similar controls are in place wherever this technology is being applied.
We make consistent efforts to work at an international level, and in particular at an EU level, whenever possible. As mentioned in response to FAWC's recommendations 2 and 6, there are now the provisions in the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 to address the welfare concerns arising from both natural and artificial breeding procedures. These provisions stem from Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, to which all member states must comply.
The UK is an active participant in the Council of Europe's Standing Committee Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. The Committee produces recommendations on the welfare of individual species of livestock and sets down conditions necessary to avoid any unnecessary suffering or injury, taking into account any physiological and biological needs. One such recommendation which has recently been adopted covers turkeys and includes provisions on breeding and breeding techniques. Article 23 states that;
1. Breeding or breeding programmes, which cause or are likely to cause suffering or harm to parent birds or their offspring shall not be practised. In particular, strains of birds whose genotype has been modified for production purposes shall not be kept under commercial farm conditions unless it has been demonstrated by scientific studies that the birds can be kept under such conditions without detrimental effects on their welfare, including their health and aspects of behaviour.
2. In breeding programmes, at least as much attention shall be paid to criteria conducive to the improvement of birds' welfare, including their health as to production criteria. Therefore, the conservation or development of breeds or strains of animals, which would limit or reduce animal welfare problems connected with, for instance, aggressiveness, feather pecking, mating or locomotory disorders shall be encouraged.'
This recommendation will form the basis of a revised turkey welfare code which is currently being prepared.
Recommendation 12
Finally FAWC believes there is a need for a two-way exchange of information on this and related technologies. We therefore recommend that a means of exchange of information on animal cloning and possibly related technologies, should be put in place as a matter of some urgency. The intent should be both to improve public awareness of the facts and issues, as well as to improve politicians' and scientists' understanding of the fundamental public concerns which undoubtedly exist. Participants should include representatives from the relevant industries and academic groups, as well as politicians and the range of public interests.
The AEBC sub-group (mentioned in response to FAWC's recommendation 6) commissioned a literature survey on the results of existing research relating to attitudes to animals and biotechnology in the UK. This revealed that the research to date was predominantly quantitative opinion surveys which gave some general indications of public attitudes. Overall, there seemed to be little research where animals and biotechnology had formed the sole focus of the research.
The AEBC, therefore, commissioned qualitative research on contemporary UK public attitudes and sensibilities towards animals with a view to understanding their subtleties and complexities. The aim was to explore in greater depth the different perspectives people have on animals and in particular about the various possible applications of modern biotechnology to animals and what public expectations might be for the regulatory framework.
The outcome of this research is discussed in the AEBC's report.
This account of the Government's action in response to the recommendations in FAWC's cloning report will be updated, as necessary, when further progress has been made.
Page last modified:
12 March 2003
Page published: 5 February 2003