Genetic Engineering in Livestock - Research Paper Example

? Genetic Engineering in Livestock: At an Ethical Crossroad First Last of Genetic Engineering in Livestock: At an Ethical Crossroad The widespread increase in population necessitates increment in food production. In similar prospects, an advent of healthier diet is a prioritized concern for most informed consumer; a trend common in the global arena. Hence, it is important to note that quantity, as well as quality, must be equally distributed in the establishment of worthy classification of farm animals for a sustainable industrial environment. In this case, the new innovation of genetic engineering is suggested as soundest procedure in achieving mass creation of safe and nutritious livestock for ultimate public consumption. Genetic engineering (GE) is basically the manipulation of genetic compositions to attain better organic results. More specifically, it is a “group of techniques used for direct genetic modifications of organism...using recombination of DNA” (Montaldo, 2005, p. 157). During the decades of rigorous genetic studies in the field, breakthroughs made it possible for basic genetic proteins (in selected animals) to be accurately identified, coded and mapped, rendering the field more efficient in determining behaviors and reactions of most protein interactions. With it, diseases both in animals and human beings are predicted, and significantly intercepted. In addition, concerted yields and consumptive traits of livestock are enhanced--more than adequately supplying public needs worldwide. Yet, several ethical advocates opposed to such ideals, proposing that animals’ rights are considerably reduced with such innovative method. In the desire to meet the needs of the people, the overall state of livestock animals subject for experiments is neglected. Although advances in genetic engineering pose several ethical dilemmas in society, the economic and social implications in food superiority and availability may outweigh problems on moral impacts. Basics in Genetically Developed Livestock Ever since the utilization of genetic technology had been pioneered in 1985 on various live stocks, several experimental attempts are ventured in order to enhance the value of farm animals in more efficient and convenient ways (Yount, 2008, p. 19). In the same manner, transgenic farm animals are viewed in increasing consistency. By transgenic livestock, this implies that animals are classified as artificially infused with specified characteristics, engineered to produce genetically better results. In more ways, these types of animals are believed to possess the ability to “resist diseases, have increased growth performance, and have better reproductive traits” (Perzigian, 2003). In this manner, genetic engineering has evolved from simple methods of pairing congruent genetic make-ups of animals to more advanced stages in incorporating totally different traits into the livestock--for the sole purpose of eliminating weaknesses and harnessing strengths. More to a point, the plethora of genetic modification in animals are quite diverse. In the food industry, meats that contain less fatty lipids and leaner can be possible through a series of genetic schemes. One way of doing this is by targeting areas responsible for growth, including the hormones and related factors responsible for such phenomenon. Other strategies can also include the gene modification of tissues involved in muscle development, as well as interruption in the normal mechanism of fatty lipid activity and clearance (Gottlieb & Wheeler, n.d., p. 18). There are several ways in achieving better value of livestock meat, depending on the expertise of scientist in genetics and agriculture. In related discussions, genetic engineering makes possible increments in excellent livestock features, through technological efforts in boosting the milk production of farm animals. Shortcomings in the composition of milk, such as “certain proteins and related growth factors,” can be assimilated for better results. Like a domino effect, the complete package of milk substance yields to better off spring nourishment, increasing the bulk of their weight, and at the same time, reducing the consistency of feeding habits (Gottlieb & Wheeler, n.d., p. 21). In the end, more healthy young livestock are sustained with lesser efforts, all because of technological maneuvers in animal genetics. As types of nourishment are augmented, the ability to deflect common animal diseases is seen as the important construct brought about by genetic engineering. In a study between “transgenic and nontransgenic cows,” results show better health conditions for the former subjects; the absence of the bacterial (Staphylococcus aureus) in transgenic cows indicates that they are well-protected by the series of genetic modifications undergone in early periods of growth (Wall et al., 2005, p. 445). Genetic engineering, then, helps reduce livestock vulnerability to several pathological statuses. The said bacterial source discussed above can cause mastitis, wherein mammary glands are inflamed due to foreign invasion. In the presence of lysostaphin, peptides increased in genetically controlled animals, stronger safeguard is ensured through antibacterial characteristics of its components (Gottlieb & Wheeler, n.d., p. 25). With ordinary livestock, such component is significantly lacking, adding dent to their welfare status. Indeed, the foundation of genetic engineering initiates profound impact not only on the quality well-being of farm animals and reproductive capabilities, health safety of animals is also being addressed in effective manner--exhibiting concerns on the overall status of genetically produced livestock. Human Impact of Improved Livestock Welfare Behind the issue on improving overall welfare of animals is the notion that genetic engineering also promotes positive impact on the lives of mankind. In the health department, earlier discussions on genetic modifications for leaner meat and less fatty lipid lead to the notion that healthier diet is one of the aims in genetic engineering. In another example, while fatty contents are reduced, more favorable fat compositions, such as “omega-3-fatty acids” can be infused in the livestock. In this mechanism, consumers can acquire the benefit of low cholesterol meat, and at the same time, the small amount of fatty contents in meat products are even converted to good fat (Gottlieb & Wheeler, n.d., p. 24). Genetic engineering in farm animals, then, minimizes human health risk for cholesterol-induced conditions; such process prioritizes the well being of public health, in line with the intent of conserving better welfare states of farm animals. Socioeconomically speaking, livestock innovation has been judiciously timed in addressing the issue on increased meat and dairy demand at reduced costs, both on the provider and consumer sides. On the advent of higher expenditure in sustaining adequate meat products, the modifications in meat composition and nourishing animal milk made it possible for livestock providers to reap the benefits of leaner meat and well-fit animal offsprings at cheaper farm maintenance. On the other side, livestock consumers are also at an advantage in acquiring valuable meat products at affordable prices. Since the maintenance of live stocks are not that expensive, it is also a given phenomena that market rates are at minimum marks, providing equal opportunities in meat and dairy acquisition--from higher to lower socioeconomic classes. Thus, not only are consumers subjected to their health benefits, the impact of genetic advancement has also aided in expanding industrial and economic conditions when it comes to dietary consumptions of live stocks. Globally, basic demands for meat and dairy products are, thereby, appeased through efficient and mass development in genetic engineering. Moreover, the livestock sector specifies the judicious application of animal parts in the quest to produce reactions for human advantage. In one instance, controlled-animal subjects had been integrated with human-derived genetic material of immune resistance traits, rendering their offsprings with the capability of “human immunoglobulin in the blood.” In a series of medical testing, the offspring with the immunoglobulin will, then, serve as the large bulk for which antibodies can be extensively extracted for therapeutic pharmacological derivations. In congruence, the mammary glands of genetically manipulated goats and cattle serve as reservoir for antibodies, eventually employed during blood extraction in fighting off human pathological conditions involving tumor cell growth (Engelhard, Hage, & Boysen, 2009, p. 6). Through extensive cultivation, genetic manipulation in animals makes possible for therapeutic prevention and treatment of human diseases. Genetic engineering on farm animals is not only fit for industrial and economic intents: extending on human medical innovations. Contrarily, these steps seem instigated more for improvement of mankind; chances are that animals’ well-being are only second priority. Animal Hazards with Genetic Modifications In the law of nature, there exist webs of food chain, wherein subsequent consumption occurs, from the smallest specie to the largest, in order to maintain the balance in ecological environment. Hence, it is but normal to consider genetically enhanced farm animals as merely performing predestined function in the ecosystem. Yet, it seems that ethical consideration on how these animals exist and the way they are manipulated are being severely exploited, rendering totally violation on their rights as living species. Several scientists suggest that genetic engineering can alleviate the suffering of such animal, eliminating their ability to experience either pleasure or pain (Perzigian, 2003). In this form, ethics holds that this is a type of mistreatment, as human beings have no authority in eliminating the natural attributes that nature bestowed upon these animals. In the method of genetic strategies, other species are affected by human desire for better living conditions, foregoing morality for self preservation of their own kind. While the removal of sentient capabilities through genetic engineering is suggested, other issues in ethics are revealed. One important subject is the welfare state of genetically altered animals. Despite positive feedback on the success of genetically modified livestock, critics pointed out that emerging genetic technique is still at the infant period, as “gene disruption, unexpected effects...and undesired inserts” have probability of occurrence. Microscopic disruptions at the genetic are not yet totally controlled, thus, side effects and adverse attributes may result in deformed physical status of experimented animals. Not only are these animals struggle with growth and physical disfigurement, systemic pathological deficiencies, as well as sexual maturation and reproduction are also the consigned fate of the experimented farm animals (Hallerman, n.d., pp. 1-4). In man’s aspiration to meet the basic physiologic need for sufficient food sources, the disposition of farm animals is critically sacrificed. This being said, genetic engineering does not create objective progress, but it unethically serves as instrument in destroying the natural chances of other living organisms for survival. Ironically, the destructive effects rendered towards the experimented animals can bounce back to the original source for such genetic innovation--the human population. As viewed by most ethical advocates, genetic engineering is no longer accomplished for altruistic purposes, instead, it has turned into public tragedy, as animals are no worse than considered with the “status of manufactured products...(with) no greater value to their creators than mechanical interventions” (Cummins & Lilliston, 1999). They are treated as “unfortunate mistake,” but the negative impact continues at the expense of maligned animals. Nevertheless, the public can be made to suffer. Upon close scrutiny, genetic schemes of cloning animals pose health risks for potential consumers, as these animals are not only subjected with high doses of growth hormones, they are also medicated with batteries of antibiotics to keep up with the pathological diseases inherent in most immune- weakened animal clones (“Send in the Clones,” 2010). Meat and dairy product can hazardously interact with human functioning, eventually endangering public health. Paradoxically, the genetically created animals made to cater to man’s need can be the crux by which they can be destroyed. To this end, genetic engineering is not that effective in resolving industrial and socioeconomic predicaments as most people are led to believe. Conclusion All in all, issues on ethical morality, which hampers the full progress of genetic engineering in farm animals, possess minor import compared to the potential value of acquiring industrial, socioeconomic, and public health advantages offered by the novel technology. Granted, there are several shortcomings regarding the genetic techniques imposed on the anatomic and physiologic activities of some livestock, but these can improve and be perfected in time. As to the morality of sentient elimination from animals, these are mere suggestions, and are still subject to better modifications. On the other side, the rewards that can be reaped are quite endless. More human lives can be saved through utilizing farm animals for human therapies, at the same time, these animals are less likely to be harmed for they are protected under the law of maximum protection for experimented organisms. Not only are human lives spared, these animals can also sustain the survival of men, as meat and dairy products are made safer and more disease-resistant. Nonetheless, the welfare status of livestock is even better ensured, for genetic engineering assures the perpetuation of their own specie; enhancing offspring nourishment, all while relieving the animals with the burden of contracting deadly diseases. Genetic engineering, therefore, is conceived not to destroy, but to create wonders in both human and animal domains. Indeed, the constructive potentials of genetic engineering far outweighs the negative ethical impact it brings, making it an essential component for the success of healthier co-existence worldwide. References Cummins, R., & Lilliston, B. (1999). Campaign for food safety news. Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/cfs21.cfm Engelhard, M., Hage, K., & Boysen, M. (2009). Genetic engineering in livestock: New applications and interdisciplinary perspectives. Germany: Springer-Verlag. Gottlieb, S., & Wheeler, M. B. (n.d.). Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health: Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment, and Animal Welfare. Retrieved from http://www.bio.org/foodag/animals/ge_animal_benefits.pdf Hallerman, E. M. (n.d.). Hazards associated with transgenesis methods. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/GMtopic3.pdf Montaldo, H. H. (2005). Genetic engineering applications in animal breeding. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 9 (2), 157-170. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ejb/v9n2/a10.pdf Perzigian, A. B. (2003). Genetic engineering and animal rights: The legal terrain and ethical underpinnings. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusgeneticengin.htm#IIIC Send in the clones: FDA set to approve food cloned animals. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/feb07/cloned_animals_and_food.php Wall, R. J., Powell, A. M., Paape, M. J., Kerr, D. E., Bannerman, D. D., Pursel, V. G., Wells, K. D., Talbot, N., & Hawk, H. W. (2005). Genetically Enhanced Cows Resist Intrammamary Staphylococcus aureus Infection. Nature Biotechnology, 23 (4), 445-451. Retrieved from http://dels-old.nas.edu/banr/gates1/docs/mtg5docs/bgdocs/ genetically_enhanced.pdf Yount, L. (2008). Biotechnology and genetic engineering (3rd ed.). United States of America: Infobase Publishing. Read More