ANIMAL WELFARE ADVISORY BODIES GROUP (AWAB) RESPONSE TO THE AEBC REPORT

23 November 2004

Background

In its response to the recommendations of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission’s (AEBC) report ‘Animals and Biotechnology’, the Government invited the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) to establish a Joint Working Party with members of the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC), the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) and a representative from the Department for International Development (DfID) to consider the AEBC’s recommendations and in particular:

The role of the proposed Joint Working Party was incorporated as an extension of the already existing Animal Welfare Advisory Bodies Group (AWAB) (set up in 2000 with the chairs and other representation from FAWC, CAWC and APC as the bodies advising Government on matters relating to animal welfare) to which an invitation was extended to DfID for discussion of this specific matter. More recently, AWAB has been joined by an observer from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) although unfortunately DfID has withdrawn its attendance due to human resource issues. AWAB, as it now stands, has recently concluded its consideration of the AEBC report. Their response and recommendations are made here.

Response and recommendations

Against the background of the problems identified by FAWC (Annex A) and CAWC (Annex B) in their respective reports covering animal breeding and breeding technologies, AWAB (in its role as the proposed Joint Working Party) recommends a vehicle through which these can be addressed:

Recommendation 1

The Joint Working Party recommends that a Standing Committee be established for the evaluation of new and existing breeding technologies as well as for the consideration of welfare and ethical problems arising as a result of breeding programmes affecting farm and companion animals. Those animals already covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (A(SP)A) should be excluded from these considerations.

The Standing Committee, established and appointed by Ministers, should be composed of members representing a broad spread of expertise and interests throughout the field of farm and companion animal breeding. It should also have significant lay representation and, importantly, an independent chairperson. The composition of the Committee should be wide enough to cover all major areas of interest and also have sufficient in-depth expertise to evaluate the evidence brought before it. For instance, given the Committee’s remit, it would be essential to include at least one specialist in molecular and quantitative genetics in the Committee membership. Additional expertise may be introduced through secondment of experts as members to assist with specific issues.

It is proposed that the Standing Committee would work from information from a variety of sources such as Ministers, Government departments, the State Veterinary Service, the Home Office Inspectorate, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), RCVS, the Kennel Club, FAWC and CAWC. It should have the freedom to determine its priorities for investigation and have the facilities to make in depth studies of new or complex issues.

Given that a major part of the Committee’s work would be associated with the surveillance of specific welfare problems, it would be essential to establish appropriate mechanisms to provide this information, such as the collection of good quality data that allows analysis of genetic and environmental effects on important health and welfare traits.

Recommendation 2

In order to determine the consequences of current breeding strategies or any new breeding technology and to provide essential feedback on welfare performance for breed companies and breed societies, the Joint Working Party recommends that a robust surveillance system be established. This should accurately monitor the incidence of specified welfare problems and be capable of providing information on welfare problems associated with breeding strategies or technologies and to determine the respective genetic and environmental contributions. This surveillance system should include extensive data currently collected, for example, by breed societies and breed companies, and should be developed in association with appropriate Government strategies.

Where available, existing data should be utilised. However, where new information is required, this should be obtained through the promotion of stakeholder partnerships and utilisation of research procurement mechanisms already in existence within Government. The obvious overlaps between the requirement of the Committee for robust data and the development of relevant Government strategies should also be acknowledged.

As far as possible, the Standing Committee will be required to work in an open and transparent way, recognising however that certain issues may be subject to strict commercial confidentiality. The issue of confidentiality could be overcome by negotiation of binding confidentiality agreements as already exist between breeding companies and academics involved in analysing their data.

The Standing Committee would be required to operate in a manner which would not place a disproportionate bureaucratic burden on stakeholders, although it is important to recognise that some advice will be far from straightforward and would involve in depth discussion with experts in particular fields. In many cases, the Standing Committee would advise the continued field surveillance of a particular genotype or technique before making a final recommendation.

Given the considerable public concern over breeding technologies, particularly within areas such as GM and cloning, it would be essential for the proposed Committee to be perceived by the public as a responsible voice on such issues. For this reason the Committee should be demonstrably independent and should also have a role whereby it engages in a two-way dialogue with the public.

The Standing Committee will require the support of an effective, adequately resourced and qualified secretariat, and must have access to resources to enable research and surveillance to be commissioned for particular issues under consideration.

In recognition of the long term issues that the Committee will address, it would be advantageous for the term of appointment of Committee members to be at least five years.

It will be apparent that these recommendations are very similar to those made by FAWC in its 2004 Report on welfare implications of breeding and breeding technologies in farm animals. In this report, FAWC recommended that the Standing Committee should be within the umbrella of FAWC, if the Committee’s remit were to be restricted to farm animals (the area of FAWC’s competence). However, given the wider remit of the Joint Working Party, all members accept that the Standing Committee recommended in this response to Government should be independent of, yet working in close association with, all the animal welfare advisory bodies (FAWC, CAWC and APC).

Its relationship with APC should be somewhat different however since its main interest will be at the interface between breed types and technologies which may be being developed under A(SP)A and their subsequent impact once they move into the commercial and wider world of agriculture and companion animal breeding.

Annex A

FAWC Report on the Welfare Implications of Animal Breeding and Breeding Technologies in Commercial Agriculture.

Annex B

CAWC’s view on the proposal that a working party or advisory body be established to consider the welfare implications to animals of their phenotypic modification, through selective breeding or application of modern biotechnology.