Farm Animal Welfare Council Annual Report 1997
APPENDIX B |
Welfare Implications of Cloning Farm Livestock 4 September 1997
Licensing / Registration of Keepers of Livestock 23 December 1997
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) to consider the implications of cloning for the welfare of farmed livestock.
The Ministry's current policy on the cloning of farm animals is guided by the recommendations of the Report of the Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals (the Banner Committee). The Committee concluded that "As regards the alleged risks involved in the production of genetically identical stock, these seem to us to be illusory". However, MAFF is conscious of public concerns not only about animal health and welfare but also the ethics of cloning animals and FAWC has also been asked whether it feels the technique raises any further moral or ethical issues.
The Council has set up an ad hoc working group to review all the available evidence and take views, in writing and directly, from interested organisations.
Issues already identified by the working group are:
FAWC would welcome your views on the above points and on any other aspects of relevance to the implications of this technique for the welfare of the animals. Comments are also sought on the wider moral or ethical issues. While research earning media attention is currently concerned with sheep, the technique may have implications for other farmed species and views are sought with regard to all livestock.
Please respond by 31 October 1997.
In 1993 the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) published its Report on Priorities for Animal Welfare Research and Development for use by Government, other funding providers, researchers and those with a general interest in welfare research. A copy of the report is enclosed for your reference.
FAWC now intends to prepare a new report taking into account progress over the last four years. At this stage, we are not seeking suggestions for future research work; this will be the subject of a further consultation. Rather, we aim to discover the usefulness and impact of the previous report and to seek comments on how the next might be improved. Please let me know how your organisation made use of the report and your ideas about changes to format that would make the document more useful. It would also be extremely helpful if you could list projects undertaken or initiated since 1993 which seek to address some of the priorities in our report. A brief summary of each would be invaluable. Feel free to make other general comments.
Please respond by 14 November 1997.
In 1990 the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) published its Report on Enforcement, making recommendations for the better implementation of welfare legislation and codes of practice. In that Report the Agriculture Departments were asked to consider the introduction of a licensing/registration scheme for all those having responsibility for livestock.
The recommendation was not accepted for the following reasons:
i) The Government believed that the safeguards introduced in the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990, which included requirements that those in charge of or attending livestock must have received instruction and guidance in any relevant Welfare Code, meant it was not necessary to introduce a licensing system.
ii) Similarly, the Government did not consider that a new system of recording holdings (registration) would improve the existing procedures for enhancing animal welfare.
FAWC is now reconsidering the topic and a working group is presently discussing the relative merits of the arguments for and against licensing or registration. Early indications are that some parts of the farming industry may not be opposed to such a scheme provided such an arrangement was properly administered and enforced. A licensing scheme may also go some way to reassuring consumers that both the quality of the product and methods of production are satisfactory.
Others are opposed to further regulation but most see the presentational merit of improved controls, particularly if it could be demonstrated that action would be taken against offenders who infringed animal welfare controls. It has been suggested that improved enforcement of existing regulatory controls may be a better way of raising standards of animal welfare.
We believe that the subject warrants wider consideration and I am writing to ask for any comments you may have. Replies will remain confidential to FAWC.
Please reply by 27 February 1998.