Ethical Issues in the Application of Biotechnology to Animals in Agriculture (original) (raw)

Uploaded (2015) | Journal: Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics, Beauchamp, T. and Frey, R. Oxford University Press 2011, pp. 826-854

Abstract

This article discusses moral problems about the use of modern biotechnology in agriculture that emerged in the early 1990s over recombinant bovine growth hormone, a chemical produced using genetically engineered microorganisms and then injected into dairy cows to increase milk yield. Then, there came genetically engineered soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton, and recently genetically engineered animals and cloned animals intended as food or breeding stock in agriculture. The discussion provides a moral framework for evaluating these new applications of modern biotechnology as they affect the food supply. It notes that all of the livestock are sentient beings with determinable welfare levels, which assures them of some degree of moral status. It points out that the moral importance of animals takes on a massive significance in light of the number of animals in the livestock sector. The livestock sector also is one of the most significant contributors to global environmental problems.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What explains the public's disapproval of genetically engineered animals compared to plants?add

Research by the Food Policy Institute reveals that 61% of the U.S. public disapproves of genetically engineered animals, while only 41% disapprove of genetically engineered plants, indicating heightened concern for animal biotechnologies.

How does the genetic modification of Enviropigs improve environmental outcomes?add

The Enviropig is engineered to produce phytase in saliva, allowing it to digest phytate and potentially reduces phosphorus excretion by up to 75%, thereby lowering phosphorus pollution in waterways.

Why are cloned and genetically engineered animals ethically controversial?add

These technologies pose significant animal welfare concerns, including potential suffering and alteration of species' natural behaviors, alongside already documented issues like increased morbidity and genetic mutations.

What role does animal biotechnology play in climate change mitigation?add

The livestock sector accounts for 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions; animal biotech may reduce the number of livestock and enhance feed efficiency, thus potentially alleviating climate-related pressures.

When did the FDA approve the commercialization of cloned cattle?add

In 2008, the FDA concluded that meat and milk from cloned cattle are as safe as conventional products, paving the way for commercial approval of these technologies.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (133)

  1. John, and Bernard E. Rollin, eds. The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions. Ames: Blackwell Press, 2004.
  2. Broom, Donald, and Andrew Fraser. Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare. 4th ed. Oxfordshire: CAB International, 2007.
  3. Dawkins, Marian Stamp. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. London: Chapman and Hall, 1980.
  4. DeGrazia, David. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  5. Evans, J. Warren, and Alexander Hollaender. Genetic Engineering of Animals: An Agricultural Perspective. New York: Plenum Press, 1986.
  6. Foer, Jonathan. Eating Animals. New York: Little, Brown, 2009.
  7. Holland, Alan, and Andrew Johnson. Animal Biotechnology and Ethics. London: Chapman and Hall, 1998.
  8. Houdebine, Louis-Marie. Animal Transgenesis and Cloning. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, 2003.
  9. Imhoff, Daniel. The CAFO Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factors. Berkeley: Watershed Media, 2010.
  10. Marcus, Erik. Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money. Boston: Brio Press, 2005.
  11. McMahan, Jeff. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
  12. Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983. National Research Council (NRC). Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004. Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. Philadelphia and Baltimore: Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2008. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Future Fish: Issues in Science and Regulation of Transgenic Fish. Philadelphia and Baltimore: Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2002.
  13. ---. Exploring the Moral and Ethical Aspects of Genetically Engineered and Cloned Animals. Philadelphia and Baltimore: Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2005.
  14. Rollin, Bernard. The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  15. ---. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. Exp. ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1998.
  16. Sandler, Ronald. Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
  17. Sapontzis, Steve. Morals, Reasons, and Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987.
  18. ---, ed. Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2004.
  19. Scully, Matthew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2002.
  20. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 2nd ed. New York: Random House, 1990.
  21. ---, and Jim Mason. The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. New York: Rodale, 2006.
  22. Thompson, Paul. Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. 2nd ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2007.
  23. ---, ed. The Ethics of Intensification: Agricultural Development and Cultural Change. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2008.
  24. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options" (2006), ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf (accessed August 31, 2010).
  25. Varner, Gary. In Nature's Interest: Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. For their many helpful comments, we thank Ronald Sandler, Antonio Rauti, Tom Beauchamp, Justine Wells, Sara Gavrell Ortiz, Rebecca Stepien, Richard Reynnells, the joint 2005 Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society discussion group, and the 2010 Greenwall Fellows discussion group. Notes 1. For a summary of the controversy, see Sheldon Krimsky and Roger
  26. Wrubel, Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996), pp. 166-190.
  27. Gregory S. Harper, Alan Brownlee, Thomas E. Hall, Robert Seymour, Russell Lyons, and Patrick Ledwith, Global Progress Toward Transgenic Food Animals: A Survey of Publicly Available Information (2003), pp. 7, 47-57, available at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/\_srcfiles/Transgenic%20Livestock%20Review %20CSIRO%20FINAL%2012Dec20031.pdf (accessed August 30, 2010).{{the date was the access date, right?}}
  28. Siobhan DeLancey, Larisa Rudenko, and John Matheson, "A Primer on Cloning and Its Use in Livestock Operations," http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/FDAVeterinarianNewsletter/ucm108
  29. Harper et al., Global Progress, pp. 7, 47-57.
  30. FDA, "Guidance for Industry: Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable Recombinant DNA Constructs," January 15, 2009, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforce ment/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf (accessed August 30, 2010).
  31. Thomas Hoban, "Education Required for Animal Biotechnology" (2002), at www4.ncsu.edu/~hobantj/biotechnology/biotechnology_webpage.html (accessed August 19, 2010).
  32. William Hallman, W. Carl Hebden, Cara Cuite, Helen Aquino, and John Lang, "Americans and GM Food: Knowledge, Opinion, and Interest in 2004: Report No. RR- 1104-0007" (New Brunswick, N.J.: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University, 2004).
  33. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, "An Update on Public Sentiment about Agricultural Biotechnology" (2003), at http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Public\_Opinion/Food _and_Biotechnology/2003summary.pdf (accessed August 19, 2010).
  34. See the chapter "Which Animals are Sentient?" in Gary Varner, Personhood and Animals in the Two-Level Utilitarianism of R.M. Hare (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).{{out yet?}} 10. For the estimate of land animals used, see Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), "FAOSTAT" (2008), at http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed August 31, 2010). For the estimate of aquatic animals used, see Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT), "The Kill Counter," July 1, 2010, at http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html (accessed August 30, 2010).
  35. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, "The Ethics of Research Involving Animals" (2005), at http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/RIA\_Report\_FINAL- opt.pdfwww4.ncsu.edu/~hobantj/biotechnology/biotechnology_webpage.html (accessed August 19, 2010).
  36. Population Reference Bureau, "How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?" at http://www.prb.org/articles/2002/howmanypeoplehaveeverlivedonearth.aspx</U RL> (accessed on August 30, 2010).
  37. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options" (2006), at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf (accessed August 31, 2010).
  38. David DeGrazia, Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 105-7.
  39. Gary Varner, In Nature's Interest: Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
  40. James Griffin, Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 11-14.
  41. Griffin, Well-Being, p. 17.
  42. David Brink, Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 233.
  43. Both of these views should be distinguished from a third alternative, Productivity views, on which welfare is constituted by the productivity of an animal in terms of its market product. Productivity views are implausible because there are times when an animal's being more productive are clearly bad for it. For example, forcing laying hens to molt by withholding food increases egg production but has a negative impact on their welfare, as it results in significant amounts of pain and distress. 20. Bernice Bovenkerk, Frans W.A. Brom, and Babs J. Van Den Bergh, "Brave New Birds: The Use of 'Animal Integrity' in Animal Ethics," Hastings Center Report 32, no. 1 (2002): 16-22, here p. 21.
  44. Sara Gavrell Ortiz, "Beyond Welfare: Animal Integrity, Animal Dignity, and Genetic Engineering" Ethics and the Environment 9, no. 1 (2004): 94-120, here p. 112. 22. These commentators understand these concepts as being in contrast to welfare. This is because they understand welfare to be synonymous with Mentalistic views. In our taxonomy, these features are understood to be part of a broad conception of welfare that extends beyond mentalistic components as captured in Desire-Satisfaction views and Objective List views.
  45. Franklin McMillan, "Do Animals Experience True Happiness?" in Franklin McMillan, Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals (Ames: {{city?}}Blackwell Publishing, 2005), p. 223, citations omitted.
  46. Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), esp. pp. 351-79.
  47. Robert Streiffer, "Animal Biotechnology and the Non-Identity Problem," American Journal of Bioethics 8, no. 6 (2008): 47-48.
  48. These cases are adapted from Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels, and Dan Wikler, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 244-45.
  49. For a discussion of different ways to justify this claim, see Bonnie Steinbock and Ron McClamrock, "When Is Birth Unfair to the Child," Hastings Center Report 24, no. 6 (1994): 15-21;
  50. Dan Brock, "The Non-Identity Problem and Genetic Harms: The Case of Wrongful Handicaps," Bioethics 9, no. 3/4 (1995): 269-75; and Bernard Rollin, The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 185-87.
  51. David Fraser, Joy Mench, and Susanne Millman, "Farm Animals and Their Welfare in 2000," in The State of the Animals: 2001, ed. D. Salem and A. Rowan (Gaithersburg: Humane Society Press, 2000), pp. 87-99.
  52. Ian Duncan, "Welfare Problems with Poultry," in The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions, ed. G. J. Benson and B. Rollin (Ames: {{city}}Blackwell Press, 2004), pp. 307-23; National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), "Layers '99: Part 1: Reference of 1999 Table Egg Layer Management in the U.S." (2003), p. 5 at http://www.nahms.aphis.usda.gov/poultry/layers99/Layers99\_dr\_PartII.pdf</UR L> (accessed August 31, 2010).
  53. Ian Duncan, "Welfare Problems with Poultry."
  54. N. G. Gregory and L. J. Wilkins, "Broken Bones in Fowl: Handling and Processing Damage in End-of-Lay Battery Hens," British Poultry Science 30, no. 3 (1989): 555-62. For further discussion, see A. B. Webster, "Welfare Implications of Avian Osteoporosis," Poultry Science 83 (2004): 184-92.
  55. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), "Swine 2006: Part IV: Changes in the U.S. Pork Industry: 1990-2006" (2008) at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/swine/swine2006/Swine2006\_P artIV.pdf (accessed August 31, 2010);
  56. David Fraser et al., "Farm Animals and Their Welfare."
  57. Timothy Blackwell, "Production Practices and Well-Being: Swine," in The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions, ed. G. J. Benson and B. Rollin (Ames:{{city; and please search for this title and replace state with city for all citations; I won't keep marking this}} Blackwell Press, 2004), pp. 241-69.
  58. Timothy Blackwell, "Production Practices and Well-Being."
  59. R. J. Collier, G. E. Dahl, and M. J. VanBaale, "Major Advances Associated with Environmental Effects on Dairy Cattle," Journal of Dairy Science 89:4 (2006): 1244-53;
  60. Franklyn Garry, "Animal Well-Being in the U.S. Dairy Industry," in The Well- Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions, ed. G. J. Benson and B. Rollin (Ames: Blackwell Press, 2004), pp. 207-40.
  61. NAHMS, "Dairy 2007: Part II: Changes in the U.S. Dairy Cattle Industry, 1991-2007)" (2007), p. 14 at http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/dairy/dairy07/Dairy07\_dr\_PartII.pdf (accessed on August 31, 2010);
  62. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, "Milk Production-December 1, 1940" (1940), at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/MilkProd//1940s/1940/MilkProd-12- 16-1940.pdf (accessed August 31, 2010).
  63. Franklyn Garry, "Animal Well-Being in the U.S. Dairy Industry."
  64. Bjørg Heringstad, Gunnar Klemetsdal, and John Ruane, "Selection for Mastitis Resistance in Dairy Cattle: A Review with Focus on the Situation in Nordic Countries," Livestock Production Science 64 (2000): 95-106.
  65. David Fraser and Daniel Weary, "Quality of Life for Farm Animals: Linking Science, Ethics, and Animal Welfare," in The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions, ed. G. J. Benson and B. Rollin, pp. 39-60.
  66. NAHM, "Dairy 2007 Part I," p. 10.
  67. Temple Grandin, "Animal Welfare in Slaughter Plants," Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of American Association of Bovine Practitioners (1996): 22-26;
  68. Temple Grandin, "Progress and Challenges in Animal Handling and Slaughter in the U.S.," Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100 (2006): 129-39. 45. National Research Council (NRC), Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004), p. 93.
  69. NRC, Animal Biotechnology, pp. 93-102, 104-7.
  70. NRC, Animal Biotechnology, p. 97.
  71. NRC, Animal Biotechnology, p. 98.
  72. Compiled from P. Sandøe, B. L. Nielson, L. G. Christensen, and P. Sørenson, "Staying Good While Playing God-The Ethics of Breeding Farm Animals," Animal Welfare 8 (1999): 313-28; Temple Grandin and Mark J. Deesing, "Genetics and Animal Welfare," in Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals, ed. T. Grandin (San Diego: Academic Press, 1998): 319-46;
  73. Michael Greger, "Transgenesis in Animal Agriculture: Addressing Animal Health and Welfare Concerns," Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, http://www.springerlink.com/content/p811p18540937037/ (accessed August 21, 2010).
  74. Grandin and Deasing, "Genetics and Animal Welfare," p. 319.
  75. Ian Duncan, "Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry: Is There a Lesson To Be Learned?" Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4, no. 3 (2001): 207-21, here p. 208.
  76. Michael Reiss and Roger Straughan, Improving Nature: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 174;
  77. Andy Coghlan, "Pressure Group Broods Over Altered Turkeys," New Scientist 138, no. 1875 (1993): 9.
  78. Ahmed Ali and Kimberly Chang, "Early Egg Production in Genetically Blind (rc/rc) Chickens in Comparison with Sighted (Rc+/rc) Controls," Poultry Science 4, no. 5 (1985): 789-94, here p. 791.
  79. Duncan, "Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry," p. 214.
  80. Duncan, "Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry," p. 215.
  81. K. Cheng, R. Shoffner, K. Gelatt, G. Gum, J. Otis, and J. Bitgood, "An Autosomal Recessive Blind Mutant in the Chicken," Poultry Science 59 (1980): 2179- 82.
  82. K. Cheng et al., "Autosomal Recessive Blind Mutant," p. 2182.
  83. Ali and Cheng, "Early Egg Production in Genetically Blind Chickens."
  84. William Shawlot and Richard Behringer, "Requirement for LIM1 in Head- Organizer Function," Nature 374 (1995): 425-30.
  85. W. Balduini, M. Cimino, G. Lombardelli, M. Abbracchio, G. Peruzzi, T.
  86. Cecchini, G. Gazzanelli, and F. Cattabeni, "Microencephalic Rats as a Model for Cognitive Disorders," Clinical Neuropharmacology 9, suppl. 3 (1986): s8-s18;
  87. Ingolf Bach, "The LIM Domain: Regulation by Association," Mechanisms of Development 91 (2000): 5-17.
  88. NRC, Animal Biotechnology, pp. 93-107.
  89. Ali and Cheng, "Early Egg Production in Genetically Blind Chickens." 63. Ali and Cheng, "Early Egg Production in Genetically Blind Chickens."
  90. Bovenkerk et al., "Use of 'Animal Integrity' in Animal Ethics"; Gavrell Ortiz, {{or is it just Ortiz?}}"Beyond Welfare," p. 112.
  91. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow," (2006), p. xx.
  92. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Climate Change 2007:
  93. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability," ed. M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden, and C. Hanson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 7-22.
  94. Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (New Haven, Conn.:
  95. Stephen Gardiner, "Ethics and Global Climate Change," Ethics 114 (2004): 555-600.
  96. IPCC, "Climate Change 2007"{{1st citation, need full details}}; Philip
  97. Hulme, "Adapting to Climate Change: Is there Scope for Ecological Management in the Face of a Global Threat?" Journal of Applied Ecology 42 (2005): 784-94; and FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  98. Camille Parmesan, "Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change," Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37 (2006): 637- 69. 70. IPCC, "Climate Change 2007."
  99. IPCC, "Climate Change 2007," p. 11.
  100. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  101. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  102. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow," p. 127.
  103. K. Turner, S. Georgiou, R. Clark, R. Brouwer, and J. Burke, "Economic Valuation of Water Resources in Agriculture: From Sectoral to a Functional Perspective on Natural Resource Management," FAO Paper Reports 24 (2004).
  104. P. Hooda, A. Edwards, H. Anderson, and A. Miller, "A Review of Water Quality Concerns in Livestock Farming Areas," The Science of the Total Environmental 250 (2000): 143-67.
  105. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  106. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow." 79. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, "Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis" (Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute, 2005), at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf (accessed August 30, 2010).
  107. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  108. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  109. Ramona Ilea, "Intensive Livestock Farming: Global Trends, Increased Environmental Concerns, and Ethical Solutions," Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (2009): 153-67.
  110. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  111. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  112. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  113. FAO, "Livestock's Long Shadow."
  114. John O'Neill, "The Varieties of Intrinsic Value," in Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, ed. H. Rolston III and A. Light (Malden: Blackwell Press, 2003).
  115. Robert Elliot, "Faking Nature," Inquiry 25, no. 1 (1982): 81-93; Holmes
  116. Rolston III, Philosophy Gone Wild ({{city}}Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989);
  117. and William Throop, "Eradicating the Aliens: Restoration and Exotic Species," in Environmental Restoration, ed. W. Throop ({{city}}Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2000).
  118. William Baxter, People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974);
  119. Bryan Norton, "Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism," in Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, ed. H. Rolston III and A. Light (Malden: Blackwell Press, 2003).
  120. Singer, Animal Liberation.
  121. Kenneth Goodpaster, "On Being Morally Considerable," The Journal of Philosophy 75 (1978): 308-25;
  122. Varner, In Nature's Interest.
  123. NRC, Animal Biotechnology, p. 83.
  124. NRC, Animal Biotechnology, p. 83.
  125. Serguei Golovan, Roy Meidinger, Ayodele Ajakaiye, Michael Cottrill, Miles Wiederkehr, David Barney, Claire Plante, John W. Pollard, Ming Fan, M. Anthony Hayes, Jesper Laursen, J. Peter Hjorth, Roger Hacker, John Phillips, and Cecil Forsberg, "Pigs Expressing Salivary Phytase Produce Low-Phosphorus Manure," Nature Biotechnology 19 (2001): 741-45.
  126. Cecil Forsberg, John Phillips, Serguei Golovan, Ming Fan, Roy Meidinger, Ayodele Ajakaiye, D. Hilborn, and R. Hacker, "The Enviropig Physiology, Performance, and Contribution to Nutrient Management Advances in a Regulated Environment: The Leading Edge of Change in the Pork Industry," Journal of Animal Science 81, e. suppl. 2 (2003): e68-e77.
  127. S. Carpenter, N. Caracao, D. Correll, R. Howarth, A. Sharpley, and V. Smith, "Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen," Ecological Applications 8, no. 3 (1998): 559-68;
  128. A. Jongbloed and N. Lenis, "Environmental Concerns about Animal Manure," Journal of Animal Science 76, no. 10 (1998): 2641-48.
  129. Leora Vestel, "The Next Pig Thing," Mother Jones, October 26, 2001, at http://motherjones.com/environment/2001/10/next-pig-thing (accessed August 31, 2010).
  130. NRC, Animal Biotechnology, p. 84.
  131. William Muir and Richard Howard, "Possible Ecological Risks of Transgenic Organism Release When Transgenes Effect Mating Success: Sexual Selection and the Trojan Gene Hypothesis," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96, no. 24 (1999): 13853-56.
  132. Dennis Kelso, "Genetically Engineered Salmon, Ecological Risks, and Environmental Policy," Bulletin of Marine Science 74, no. 3 (2004): 509-28; and NRC, Animal Biotechnology, p. 90.
  133. Norman Maclean and Richard James Laight, "Transgenic Fish: An Evaluation of Benefits and Risks," Fish and Fisheries 1 (2000): 146-72.