Invited review: Breeding and ethical perspectives on genetically modified and genome edited cattle.

The hot topic of genetic modification and genome editing is sometimes presented as a rapid solution to various problems in the field of animal breeding and genetics. These technologies hold potential for future use in agriculture but we need to be aware of difficulties in large-scale application and integration in breeding schemes. In this review, we discuss applications of both classical genetic modifications (GM) using vectors and genome editing in dairy cattle breeding. We use an interdisciplinary approach considering both ethical and animal breeding perspectives. Decisions on how to make use of these techniques need to be made based not only on what is possible, but on what is reasonable to do. Principles of animal integrity, naturalness, risk perception, and animal welfare issues are examples of ethically relevant factors to consider. These factors also influence public perception and decisions about regulations by authorities. We need to acknowledge that we lack complete understanding of the genetic background of complex traits. It may be difficult, therefore, to predict the full effect of certain modifications in large-scale breeding programs. We present 2 potential applications: genome editing to dispense with dehorning, and insertion of human genes in bovine genomes to improve udder health as an example of classical GM. Both of these cases could be seen as beneficial for animal welfare but they differ in other aspects. In the former case, a genetic variant already present within the species is introduced, whereas in the latter case, transgenic animals are generated-this difference may influence how society regards the applications. We underline that the use of GM, as well as genome editing, of farm animals such as cattle is not independent of the context, and should be considered as part of an entire process, including, for example, the assisted reproduction technology that needs to be used. We propose that breeding organizations and breeding companies should take an active role in ethical discussions about the use of these techniques and thereby signal to society that these questions are being responsibly addressed.

Environmental Risk Factors for Diabetes Mellitus in Cats.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes in cats resembles type 2 diabetes in people. The etiology is not fully understood, but both genetic and environmental factors are believed to contribute. OBJECTIVES: To assess the associations of environmental risk factors with diabetes in cats. ANIMALS: Cats with a diagnosis of diabetes (n = 396) insured by a Swedish insurance company during years 2009-2013, and a control group (n = 1,670) matched on birth year. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was used in a case-control study. An invitation to participate was sent to owners of 1,369 diabetic cats and 5,363 control cats. The survey contained questions related to the cat's breed, age, sex, neutering status, body condition, housing, access to the outdoors, activity level, diet, eating behavior, feeding routine, general health, stressful events, other pets in the household, medications, and vaccination status. Data were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Response rate was 35% for the diabetic group and 32% for the control group. Indoor confinement, being a greedy eater, and being overweight were associated with an increased risk of diabetes. In cats assessed by owners as being normal weight, there was an association between eating predominantly dry food and an increased risk of diabetes (Odds ratio 3.8; 95% confidence intervals 1.3-11.2). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Dry food is commonly fed to cats worldwide. The association found between dry food and an increased risk of diabetes in cats assessed as normal weight by owners warrants further attention.

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.