Guest author: Ellen Goddard PhD
After many years of attempting to figure out what the public think about various genomic technologies being used in livestock, there are a few things I have learned. First, the public is not one person and across the varied public responses to novel uses of genomic technologies, attitudes are specific to the species of animal being affected, the trait of focus and the actual technology being used. Thus, public attitudes towards encouraging disease resilience in pigs through gene-editing are very different than attitudes towards the use of gene-editing to remove horns in dairy cows. There is no single attitude towards gene-editing across all traits and livestock species. Second, a single study, even with sufficient statistical power, at one point in time, is not representative of broader attitudes at other points in time. It is important to test for replicability over time to be sure the findings are solid results.
With that in mind, I did a small survey in 2019 and larger surveys in 2021 and 2024 to establish what the Canadian public thinks of gene-editing for disease resilience in pigs at the same time as I examined in separate surveys what the Canadian public thought of gene-editing dairy cows for horn removal. To clarify the findings I first asked about the preference for the trait. In pigs, the trait of disease resilience was seen as positive by the Canadian public, in particular: by people who are positive about current pig husbandry practices, people who are worried about longer term environmental quality, people who trust both industry (eg. farmers, processors) and advocacy (environment, animal welfare) organizations and people who consume pork more frequently. Older Canadians were generally less positive on the trait. While trust in the government in terms of its responsibility for food had no explanatory power, trust in how the government handles new technologies did help explain positive attitudes towards breeding pigs for disease resilience. More people were positive about breeding for disease resilience in pigs in comparison to breeding dairy cows to not have horns.
After knowing about the attitudes towards trait, I asked about different uses of methods to achieve the higher level of disease resilience including conventional breeding, using genomic selection to breed for more disease resilient pigs and using gene editing to achieve more disease resilient pigs. I also provided respondents with information on length of adjustment in the pig herd and a technical summary of the method. Every time the public preferred conventional breeding over genomic selection and both of those over the use of gene-editing to achieve disease resilience in pigs. However, this only gave the public an option for their preferred technology and did not give them the choice of not achieving the trait – a more realistic scenario at the moment. Given the positivity for the trait, it is likely that the public would accept the use of the technology if it is the only way to achieve the ends that the public prefers. Interestingly, there is variability in the strength of the preferred technology attitude over time with the 2024 survey showing more acceptability of gene-editing than the 2021 survey. If, for example, concerns about pig disease have grown then using a faster more accurate gene editing tool might be becoming more popular.
The issue of labeling or not labeling the use of technology in production has arisen regularly with the earlier technology called genetic modification. At a simple level, asking the public in a survey whether or not they want anything labeled will generally result in a positive response. The public always wants to know that any information they might want is easily available. The preference for labeling becomes more nuanced as the provision of labeling comes at a cost – which it would in reality. For the issue of gene editing for disease resilience in pigs, the public preference was, not unexpectedly, generally in favour of labeling. However, as cost of labeling increases, for males and people who trust industry, labeling is not seen as a positive. On the other hand, for people with higher levels of education, people who are generally trusting, people with stronger interest in protecting animals, people who trust advocacy organizations, people who consume pork more frequently and people who think pig husbandry is satisfactory there is still a stronger demand for labeling. Regulatory decisions in Canada to date related to biotechnology suggest that labeling is never likely to be regulated. Based on this and earlier research, it must be recognized that labeling would provide information to the public that could allay concerns about any technology. Over time, the existence of the labeling could help people understand whether or not the technology is threatening. It is not clear that decisions to not regulate (in the form of pre-market safety assessments) or label products from the use of genetic technologies contributes positively to the overall general public attitude towards the use of the technology. Given the general importance of trust in decisions about the acceptability of the use of new technologies and the desire for labeling that remains significant, it is likely that labeling could decrease concern about the use of the technology. What is clear though is that public attitudes towards gene editing for traits such as disease resilience are positive for reasons such as animal health and welfare, and possibly human and public health (reduce antibiotic use for example).
Dr. Ellen Goddard also appeared on Swine it Podcast in June 2026 to discuss discusses public acceptance of genomic technologies in pork production see link to the podcast here.