Danish milk consumers are critical of advanced breeding methods in dairy production, but only 1 in 5 is unwilling to drink milk from dairy cows bred with semen derived from such methods.

Assisted reproductive technologies and genetic technologies can accelerate progress in breeding programs in dairy farming, but it is unclear how consumers will react to the use of these technologies. Using representative questionnaire data on Danish citizens (n = 2,036) this cross-sectional study examined consumer attitudes to the application of advanced technologies in dairy cattle breeding. Attitudes were examined in 2 ways. First, we prompted about general attitudes to assisted reproductive technologies and genetic technologies in dairy cow breeding. Here we found that most of the participants were critical of cow impregnation involving hormone therapy and the insertion of cloned fetuses. Second, we used a vignette experiment to study whether acceptance of and willingness to drink milk varies with the type of technique that farmers use for their breeding work, as well as the traits being bred for. We included 5 breeding methods with differing degrees of technological complexity. Participants were randomly assigned to receive tailored information about 1 of the 5 breeding methods. The information specified that dairy farmers' own use of advanced technologies is limited to using semen in artificial insemination on the farm. The potentially concerning technologies are here not applied at farm level but are represented in the semen used in artificial insemination because they were used by breeders on earlier generations of cows and bulls to develop semen with higher genetic merit. There was much less concern about this indirect use of the technologies. Only 1 in 5 participants thought the most advanced method we prompted about (use of semen from breeding methods involving genetic engineering and cloning) was unacceptable. Unwillingness to drink milk from cows produced through such a breeding method was also modest (18%) and not much higher than the unwillingness to drink milk from a cow produced by natural fertilization (10%). A likely reason for the unexpectedly low level of unwillingness to drink milk is that people regard the genetic engineering as distant from the final product. We also found that high-frequency organic milk consumers were more critical of advanced breeding methods. Thus, 28% within this group were unwilling to drink milk from cows impregnated with semen derived from earlier generations of cows and bulls bred using gene editing and cloning. Further, this share rose if the high-frequency organic consumers were very averse to the manipulation of nature. The organic sector may need to cater to this subgroup (e.g., by ensuring the traceability of the semen that organic farmers use to artificially inseminate their cows).

Danish dairy farmers' acceptance of and willingness to use semen from bulls produced by means of in vitro embryo production and genomic selection.

A novel technology combining in vitro production and genomic embryo selection is currently under development in dairy cattle breeding. Adoption of this technology will probably accelerate genetic progress toward the main breeding goals of economic interest, as well as allow selection for traits of societal concern such as decreased methane emissions and improved animal welfare. However, dairy farmers, and especially organic farmers, could find the technology morally questionable and reject its use. This cross-sectional study surveyed Danish dairy farmers' general acceptance of the combined technology and their reported likelihood of using semen produced with it. Drawing on diffusion theory, a questionnaire was developed to examine the way farmers discover and communicate about new technological breeding options, and to measure the factors which predict acceptance and likelihood of adopting the technology. The questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected sample of organic and conventional dairy farmers in Denmark, and 85 organic and 71 conventional farmers (41% response rate) completed it. Seventy-six percent of farmers reported that they would be likely to use semen from bulls derived from the technology. A majority (61%) also found the technology acceptable, but many (33%) were unsure or undecided. Most farmers saw the technology as beneficial, but ethical reservations were aired by around a fifth of the farmers. There were no differences between organic and conventional farmers in likelihood of using, perceived utility, and ethical reservations about the technology. Self-reported idealistic organic farmers showed lower acceptance of the technology, but reported similar likelihood of using semen produced by it. Young farmers (20-39 yr) exhibited higher acceptance of the technology. Larger producers (in terms of number of cows) were more likely to report that they will use and accept the technology. We conclude that it is likely that semen from the technology combining in vitro production and genomic selection would be widely used by both organic and conventional farmers provided that costs can be kept low, and that there are advantages in terms of achieving breeding goals. Structural developments, growth in size of dairy farms, acceptance by young farmers, and the fact that economic incentives (and even ethical arguments) seem to favor the technology all point to this conclusion.

Balancing the needs and preferences of humans against concerns for fishes: how to handle the emerging ethical discussions regarding capture fisheries?

How can stakeholders within the fisheries community engage in constructive ethical discussions? Drawing on experiences from previous debates surrounding the human use of animals, this paper presents a proactive approach whereby stakeholders can create a framework for ethical discussion of capture fisheries.

A case for integrity: gains from including more than animal welfare in animal ethics committee deliberations.

From January 2013, a new EU Directive 63/2010/EU requires that research using animals must undergo a harm-benefit analysis, which takes ethical considerations into account (Art. 38 (2) d) - a so-called 'project authorization' (Art. 36). A competent authority in each member state has to ensure that no project is carried out without such a project validation process, but often delegates the actual assessment to an animal ethics committee (AEC) or its equivalent. The core task of the AEC is to formulate a justifiable balance between the animals' suffering caused by research and the potential human benefit. AECs traditionally focus on animal welfare issues, but according to the new directive other public concerns must also be taken into account. Taking the new EU Directive as a point of departure, the central aim of this paper is to discuss the evaluation process in relation to animal welfare and animal ethics through the concept of animal integrity. A further aim is to elaborate on possible improvements to project evaluation by considering animal integrity. We argue that concepts like animal integrity are often left out of project authorization processes within AECs, because animal ethics is often interpreted narrowly to include only certain aspects of animal welfare. Firstly, we describe the task of an AEC and discuss what has typically been regarded as ethically relevant in the assessment process. Secondly, we categorize four notions of integrity found in the literature to show the complexity of the concept and furthermore to indicate its strengths. Thirdly, we discuss how certain interpretations of integrity can be included in AEC assessments to encapsulate wider ethical concerns and, perhaps even increase the democratic legitimacy of AECs.