What The Public Thinks About Genome Editing In Farmed Animals

As animal agriculture faces growing ethical scrutiny, genome editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 promise more efficient breeding with potential welfare and environmental benefits, such as increased heat tolerance or feed efficiency. However, these technologies also raise concerns about unintended harms to animals and further intensification of animal farming. Amidst this debate, the public remains underrepresented.

This study, part of the GEroNIMO animal breeding project, examines public attitudes in Europe toward genome editing in farmed chickens and pigs. The authors draw on Moral Foundations Theory, which emphasizes the importance of intuitions in moral decision-making. This theory identifies six foundations that shape people’s intuitive moral judgements:

• Care/Harm (e.g., genome editing technology reduces animal suffering)
• Fairness/Cheating (e.g., companies benefit from genome editing technology while animals or workers are disadvantaged)
• Liberty/Oppression (e.g., governments force genome editing technology onto people)
• Loyalty/Betrayal (e.g., international companies benefit from genome editing technology rather than local farmers)
• Authority/Subversion (e.g., genome editing technology destroys traditional farming practices)
• Sanctity/Degradation (e.g., genome editing technology is unnatural)

Western institutions tend to overemphasize the first three individual-based concerns while neglecting the last three group-based concerns, which can undermine public trust. The authors argue that a more balanced approach is essential for broader acceptance of new food technologies like genome editing.

The team conducted eight focus groups with 70 diverse participants recruited across France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Slovenia. Two focus groups were held in each country, one urban and one rural. Participants varied by gender, age, education, and diet.

Sessions followed a structured discussion guide. Participants were introduced to genome editing, and then asked to rank four different breeding goals, including human-related, animal welfare, environment-related, and a shift to alternative proteins (cultured meat). Finally, they reacted to three future scenarios:

• A positive future, where genome editing produces benefits across the board;
• A negative future, where genome editing intensifies animal agriculture and leaves animal welfare issues unaddressed; and
• A pragmatic future, where genome editing leads to improvements in the short term but is less ideal than shifting toward alternative proteins.

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and interpreted through Moral Foundations Theory.

Public Attitudes Across Three Themes

Overall, participants in Germany and the Netherlands were more open to genome editing. French and Slovenian participants were more critical, though Slovenians accepted the technology’s medical applications. The findings clustered around three themes: the role of technology, the role of animals, and the future of animal farming.

The Role Of Technology

Participants expressed low trust in whether genome editing could be used responsibly, citing profit motives and corporate control. They worried about dependence on the technology, loss of locally adapted breeds, and unintended consequences for animal welfare and the environment. At the same time, many acknowledged the technology’s precision and potential to reduce disease and animal numbers.

A recurring view was that genome editing is morally neutral: its value depends entirely on how it’s used. Relatedly, many participants noted that objections to genome editing often apply equally to conventional selective breeding. Since humans have shaped animal genetics for centuries, genome editing was seen by some as simply faster and more targeted. However, others pushed back, arguing that long-standing practice doesn’t automatically make something ethical.

The Role Of Animals

Across all countries, participants agreed that farmed animals should be the primary beneficiaries of genome editing. Animal welfare ranked among the top breeding priorities everywhere, reflecting concern that profit motives might otherwise override animal interests. Some German participants proposed radical ideas, such as making animal distress visibly detectable or linking welfare to product quality, underscoring how central welfare was to their vision of the technology.

Participants consistently distinguished between genome editing in animals versus plants, viewing animal applications as more ethically loaded given animal sentience. The concept of animal disenhancement — breeding animals who can’t feel pain, for example — emerged unprompted and was widely rejected as ethically troubling. Most found it uncomfortable or even frightening, arguing it could reduce moral restraint and lead to worse treatment of animals overall.

The Future Of Animal Farming

Many participants argued that genome editing addresses symptoms rather than causes. By allowing existing farming systems to continue largely unchanged, it risks becoming a “technological fix” that delays more fundamental reform. Some warned that short-term solutions could foreclose better long-term alternatives.

That said, a pragmatic strand of opinion emerged: given that major dietary shifts or alternatives like cultivated meat remain distant, genome editing may be the most feasible near-term tool. Some participants framed this not as endorsement but as realism.

Participants in Germany and the Netherlands showed greater openness to using CRISPR-Cas9 to produce cultivated meat. Those in France and Slovenia were largely opposed, with many expressing disgust and a belief that slaughter-based meat is more natural or better quality. Younger and non-omnivorous participants were more accepting.

Implications For Communication And Engagement

Strong moral positions frequently rested on feelings of disgust or unease rather than explicit reasoning. Several participants couldn’t articulate their objections but held firm to them regardless, a phenomenon known as moral dumbfounding. The authors note that this isn’t limited to lay people; similar intuitive responses appear among experts, suggesting that moral reasoning often begins with intuition, with justifications constructed afterward.

From a critical empirical ethics perspective, it matters to distinguish factual misconceptions, addressable with information, from deeper moral concerns, which require genuine dialogue. Moral Foundations Theory helps explain why harm-based arguments often fail to persuade people driven by sanctity concerns around purity and naturalness. Instead, the authors suggest arguing from the same moral foundation as the concern — for instance, by pointing out that many normalized foods are equally unnatural due to selective breeding.

Country-Level Differences

France and Slovenia were consistently more critical of both genome editing and cultivated meat. Concerns about food quality were more prominent in France; protecting local breeds and biodiversity featured more in Slovenia. Germany and the Netherlands were generally more open. While quantitative research is needed to confirm these patterns, the findings highlight how cultural values shape responses to food technology, and why one-size-fits-all communication strategies are unlikely to succeed.

Looking Ahead

This study found that public acceptance of genome editing in farmed animals depends on clear animal welfare benefits, fairness, transparency, and institutional trust. Concerns about “playing God,” unnaturalness, and corporate control were widespread, as were pragmatic views that societies adapt over time and that alternatives remain limited.

Crucially, many objections reflected underlying moral foundations rather than factual misunderstandings. Addressing these intuitions, not just risk communication, is essential to meaningful public engagement. Ultimately, if genome editing is to contribute to more sustainable food systems, it must go beyond refining existing animal farming to support reducing and replacing animal use altogether, particularly in contexts more open to technological change.