Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — May 2014 Certain antibiotics are banned from use in food animals while others are restricted to specific uses. These restrictions are intended to prevent the development of antibiotic resistance that could be transferred to humans. No restrictions on antibiotic use, however, are applied to companion animals. While over half of Canadians own a dog or cat less than 1% of the public interacts with commercial livestock. Therefore antibiotic use in companion animals may be more likely to transfer antimicrobial resistant bacteria to humans as a result of the frequent and close interactions between humans and their pets. One might assume that no restrictions are placed on the use of antibiotics in companion animals because of the outcry from pet owners should their companion animal suffer because an effective antibiotic was not permitted for their use. Is it morally defensible to ban certain antibiotics in livestock while allowing unrestricted access to these products in companion animals?
Question de déontologie du mois — Mai 2014 L’utilisation de certains antibiotiques est interdite chez les animaux destinés à l’alimentation tandis que d’autres sont limités à des usages spécifiques. Ces restrictions visent à prévenir le développement d’une antibiorésistance qui pourrait être transférée aux humains. Cependant, aucune restriction ne s’applique aux animaux de compagnie. Tandis que plus de la moitié des Canadiens possèdent un chien ou un chat, moins de 1 % du public interagit avec le bétail commercial. Par conséquent, il pourrait être plus probable que l’usage des antibiotiques chez les animaux de compagnie transfère la bactérie résistante aux antimicrobiens aux humains en raison des interactions fréquentes et étroites entre les humains et leurs animaux de compagnie. On pourrait supposer qu’aucune restriction n’est imposée sur l’usage des antibiotiques chez les animaux de compagnie en raison du tollé qui serait soulevé par les propriétaires d’animaux de compagnie si leur animal devait souffrir parce qu’un antibiotique efficace leur est interdit. Peut-on moralement défendre l’interdiction de certains antibiotiques chez le bétail tout en permettant le libre accès à ces produits pour les animaux de compagnie?
Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, Veterinary Science, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10, Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: [email protected] Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.
Les réponses au cas présenté sont les bienvenues. Veuillez limiter votre réponse à environ 50 mots et nous la faire parvenir par la poste avec vos nom et adresse à l’adresse suivante : Choix déontologiques, a/s du Dr Tim Blackwell, Science vétérinaire, ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales de l’Ontario, 6484, chemin Wellington 7, unité 10, Elora (Ontario) N0B 1S0; téléphone : (519) 846-3413; télé copieur : (519) 846-8178; courriel : [email protected] Les propositions de questions déontologiques sont toujours bienvenues! Toutes les questions et situations présentées dans cette chronique s’inspirent d’événements réels dont nous modifions certains éléments, comme les noms, les endroits ou les espèces, pour protéger l’anonymat des personnes en cause.
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office ([email protected]) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere. L’usage du présent article se limite à un seul exemplaire pour étude personnelle. Les personnes intéressées à se procurer des réimpressions devraient communiquer avec le bureau de l’ACMV ([email protected]) pour obtenir des exemplaires additionnels ou la permission d’utiliser cet article ailleurs. CVJ / VOL 55 / MAY 2014
415
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
Ethical question of the month — February 2014 Recent advances in the production of “test tube meat” (meat fibers produced in cell culture) have added a new perspective to discussions regarding the welfare of domestic food animals. If meat can be made in laboratories growing muscle cells in nutrient broth, then there may no longer be a valid reason or need to raise domestic animals on farms. Can well-managed livestock farms operated by caring and knowledgeable stockpeople compete on an ethical basis with muscle cells grown in vitro?
Question de déontologie du mois — Février 2014 Les progrès récents dans la production d’une « viande éprouvette » (des fibres de viande produites dans une culture cellulaire) jettent un nouvel éclairage sur les discussions concernant le bien-être des animaux domestiques destinés à l’alimentation. Si la viande peut être fabriquée dans des laboratoires qui cultivent des cellules musculaires dans un bouillon d’éléments nutritifs, il pourrait ne plus y avoir de raison valide ni de besoin d’élever des animaux domestiques à la ferme. Les fermes d’élevage bien gérées et exploitées par des éleveurs compatissants et informés peuvent-elles faire concurrence, sur le plan de l’éthique, aux cellules musculaires cultivées in vitro?
Artificial meat — A comment The opportunity cost of progress: No matter how well managed a livestock operation is, there will always be risks associated with biosecurity. As we enter the antimicrobial resistant era, our toolbox for managing this situation grows smaller. Eliminating our interaction with farm animals will significantly contribute to reducing transmission
of zoonotic diseases. We will also reduce the use of certain third line antibiotics that should be reserved for human use. Perhaps laboratory grown meat will be the next step in food production and our society will have to adapt. Mike Chouster, Toronto, Ontario
An ethicist’s commentary on artificial meat The technology for creating artificial meat seems to be moving forward at a healthy pace. In fact there are and have been for some time various products that were developed as meat substitutes, for example, grain and tofu-based hamburgers and sausages. More recently, meat cells that can be grown in vitro seem to offer a promising new approach to producing artificial meat. In August of 2013, a hamburger so produced was unveiled and pronounced to be more like “real meat” than anything hitherto created. There are a variety of reasons that artificial meat could garner a respectable market share. People are concerned about cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and infectious diseases associated with the production of meat. The wasteful use of resources such as water required to produce animal products, as well as negative environmental consequences of animal production and everincreasing societal concern about animal welfare, have also created more receptivity to artificial meat in the public mind. It is probably only a matter of time before both the cost of producing artificial meat drops, and its palatability increases. All of this is likely to remove any stigma of “freakishness” from this product. Is it therefore likely and inevitable that standard meat production will significantly fall in response to the in vitro alternative? That of course will depend on a multiplicity of factors — how palatable is the resultant product? How much does it resemble “real meat?” How much improvement can be effected in palatability, health and environmental consequences of food animal production? Such considerations are inherently unpredictable. Were I to venture a guess, I would say that much of the popula-
416
tion would continue to purchase meat from traditional sources, though young people, not as wedded to tradition, are likely to embrace a food source that is demonstrably environmentally sound, healthful, and causes no harm to animals. By the same token, the powerful social thrust towards “natural” and “organic” pushes in the other direction. In the end, it is unlikely that large numbers of people would choose “artificial meat,” though much would depend on how the advertisements in support of that product were pitched. If opponents of synthetic meat stressed the end of rural life likely to accompany a burgeoning artificial meat industry, people might be swayed against such a product. On the other hand, the assimilation of “farms” to factories has not really harmed modern agriculture, though old-timers regularly lament the absence of chicken and eggs with a distinctive discernible taste. Once again, absent clear comparability of the taste of new meat to the traditional product, people are likely to remain conservative. Whatever occurs, this new technological development should serve notice to the animal agricultural community that they need to clean up the problematic areas of meat production, noted by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. If that occurs, it is likely to forestall consumer movement away from the iconic images of pastoral agriculture. In a way, the movement away from traditional farms and towards factory-like production systems characteristic of modern agricultural systems may well serve to create conditions that favor artificial meat. Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
CVJ / VOL 55 / MAY 2014
Question de déontologie du mois — Mai 2014 L’utilisation de certains antibiotiques est interdite chez les animaux destinés à l’alimentation tandis que d’autres sont limités à des usages spécifiques. Ces restrictions visent à prévenir le développement d’une antibiorésistance qui pourrait être transférée aux humains. Cependant, aucune restriction ne s’applique aux animaux de compagnie. Tandis que plus de la moitié des Canadiens possèdent un chien ou un chat, moins de 1 % du public interagit avec le bétail commercial. Par conséquent, il pourrait être plus probable que l’usage des antibiotiques chez les animaux de compagnie transfère la bactérie résistante aux antimicrobiens aux humains en raison des interactions fréquentes et étroites entre les humains et leurs animaux de compagnie. On pourrait supposer qu’aucune restriction n’est imposée sur l’usage des antibiotiques chez les animaux de compagnie en raison du tollé qui serait soulevé par les propriétaires d’animaux de compagnie si leur animal devait souffrir parce qu’un antibiotique efficace leur est interdit. Peut-on moralement défendre l’interdiction de certains antibiotiques chez le bétail tout en permettant le libre accès à ces produits pour les animaux de compagnie?
Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, Veterinary Science, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10, Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: [email protected] Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.
Les réponses au cas présenté sont les bienvenues. Veuillez limiter votre réponse à environ 50 mots et nous la faire parvenir par la poste avec vos nom et adresse à l’adresse suivante : Choix déontologiques, a/s du Dr Tim Blackwell, Science vétérinaire, ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales de l’Ontario, 6484, chemin Wellington 7, unité 10, Elora (Ontario) N0B 1S0; téléphone : (519) 846-3413; télé copieur : (519) 846-8178; courriel : [email protected] Les propositions de questions déontologiques sont toujours bienvenues! Toutes les questions et situations présentées dans cette chronique s’inspirent d’événements réels dont nous modifions certains éléments, comme les noms, les endroits ou les espèces, pour protéger l’anonymat des personnes en cause.
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office ([email protected]) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere. L’usage du présent article se limite à un seul exemplaire pour étude personnelle. Les personnes intéressées à se procurer des réimpressions devraient communiquer avec le bureau de l’ACMV ([email protected]) pour obtenir des exemplaires additionnels ou la permission d’utiliser cet article ailleurs. CVJ / VOL 55 / MAY 2014
415
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
Ethical question of the month — February 2014 Recent advances in the production of “test tube meat” (meat fibers produced in cell culture) have added a new perspective to discussions regarding the welfare of domestic food animals. If meat can be made in laboratories growing muscle cells in nutrient broth, then there may no longer be a valid reason or need to raise domestic animals on farms. Can well-managed livestock farms operated by caring and knowledgeable stockpeople compete on an ethical basis with muscle cells grown in vitro?
Question de déontologie du mois — Février 2014 Les progrès récents dans la production d’une « viande éprouvette » (des fibres de viande produites dans une culture cellulaire) jettent un nouvel éclairage sur les discussions concernant le bien-être des animaux domestiques destinés à l’alimentation. Si la viande peut être fabriquée dans des laboratoires qui cultivent des cellules musculaires dans un bouillon d’éléments nutritifs, il pourrait ne plus y avoir de raison valide ni de besoin d’élever des animaux domestiques à la ferme. Les fermes d’élevage bien gérées et exploitées par des éleveurs compatissants et informés peuvent-elles faire concurrence, sur le plan de l’éthique, aux cellules musculaires cultivées in vitro?
Artificial meat — A comment The opportunity cost of progress: No matter how well managed a livestock operation is, there will always be risks associated with biosecurity. As we enter the antimicrobial resistant era, our toolbox for managing this situation grows smaller. Eliminating our interaction with farm animals will significantly contribute to reducing transmission
of zoonotic diseases. We will also reduce the use of certain third line antibiotics that should be reserved for human use. Perhaps laboratory grown meat will be the next step in food production and our society will have to adapt. Mike Chouster, Toronto, Ontario
An ethicist’s commentary on artificial meat The technology for creating artificial meat seems to be moving forward at a healthy pace. In fact there are and have been for some time various products that were developed as meat substitutes, for example, grain and tofu-based hamburgers and sausages. More recently, meat cells that can be grown in vitro seem to offer a promising new approach to producing artificial meat. In August of 2013, a hamburger so produced was unveiled and pronounced to be more like “real meat” than anything hitherto created. There are a variety of reasons that artificial meat could garner a respectable market share. People are concerned about cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and infectious diseases associated with the production of meat. The wasteful use of resources such as water required to produce animal products, as well as negative environmental consequences of animal production and everincreasing societal concern about animal welfare, have also created more receptivity to artificial meat in the public mind. It is probably only a matter of time before both the cost of producing artificial meat drops, and its palatability increases. All of this is likely to remove any stigma of “freakishness” from this product. Is it therefore likely and inevitable that standard meat production will significantly fall in response to the in vitro alternative? That of course will depend on a multiplicity of factors — how palatable is the resultant product? How much does it resemble “real meat?” How much improvement can be effected in palatability, health and environmental consequences of food animal production? Such considerations are inherently unpredictable. Were I to venture a guess, I would say that much of the popula-
416
tion would continue to purchase meat from traditional sources, though young people, not as wedded to tradition, are likely to embrace a food source that is demonstrably environmentally sound, healthful, and causes no harm to animals. By the same token, the powerful social thrust towards “natural” and “organic” pushes in the other direction. In the end, it is unlikely that large numbers of people would choose “artificial meat,” though much would depend on how the advertisements in support of that product were pitched. If opponents of synthetic meat stressed the end of rural life likely to accompany a burgeoning artificial meat industry, people might be swayed against such a product. On the other hand, the assimilation of “farms” to factories has not really harmed modern agriculture, though old-timers regularly lament the absence of chicken and eggs with a distinctive discernible taste. Once again, absent clear comparability of the taste of new meat to the traditional product, people are likely to remain conservative. Whatever occurs, this new technological development should serve notice to the animal agricultural community that they need to clean up the problematic areas of meat production, noted by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. If that occurs, it is likely to forestall consumer movement away from the iconic images of pastoral agriculture. In a way, the movement away from traditional farms and towards factory-like production systems characteristic of modern agricultural systems may well serve to create conditions that favor artificial meat. Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
CVJ / VOL 55 / MAY 2014
