Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun;26(3):385-398.
doi: 10.1007/s11248-017-0017-2. Epub 2017 Apr 21.

Genome edited animals: Learning from GM crops?

Affiliations

Genome edited animals: Learning from GM crops?

Ann Bruce. Transgenic Res. 2017 Jun.

Abstract

Genome editing of livestock is poised to become commercial reality, yet questions remain as to appropriate regulation, potential impact on the industry sector and public acceptability of products. This paper looks at how genome editing of livestock has attempted to learn some of the lessons from commercialisation of GM crops, and takes a systemic approach to explore some of the complexity and ambiguity in incorporating genome edited animals in a food production system. Current applications of genome editing are considered, viewed from the perspective of past technological applications. The question of what is genome editing, and can it be considered natural is examined. The implications of regulation on development of different sectors of livestock production systems are studied, with a particular focus on the veterinary sector. From an EU perspective, regulation of genome edited animals, although not necessarily the same as for GM crops, is advocated from a number of different perspectives. This paper aims to open up new avenues of research on genome edited animals, extending from the current primary focus on science and regulation, to engage with a wider-range of food system actors.

Keywords: Genome edited livestock; Industry structure; Production systems; Regulation; Veterinarians.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author was employed by the Pig Improvement Company (now Genus plc.) 1983–1992.

References

    1. Barnes AP, Moxey AP, Ahamadi BV, Borthwick FA. The effect of animal health compensation on ‘positive’ behaviours towards exotic disease reporting and implementing biosecurity: a review, a synthesis and a research agenda. Prev Vet Med. 2015;122:42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.09.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bruce DM. Genome editing: moving the goalposts on the GM playing field? In: Olsson IAS, Araújo SM, Vieira MF, editors. Food futures: ethics, science and culture. Wageningen: Wageningen Publishers; 2016. pp. 518–522.
    1. Bruce D, Bruce A. Engineering genesis. The ethics of genetic engineering in non-human species. London: Earthscan; 1998.
    1. Bruce A, Castle D, Gibbs C, Tait J, Whitelaw CBAW (2013) Novel GM animal technologies and their governance. Transgenic Res 22:681–695. doi:10.1007/s11248-013-9724-5. ISSN: 0962-8819 - PubMed
    1. Bulfield G. Genetic manipulation of farm and laboratory animals. In: Wheale P, McNally R, editors. The bio-revolution cornucopia or Pandora’s box. London: Pluto Press; 1990. pp. 18–23.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources