Some breeding technology applications are claimed to improve animal welfare: this includes potential applications of genomics and genome editing to improve animals’ resistance to environmental stress, to genetically alter features which in current practice are changed invasively, or to reduce animals’ capacity for suffering. Such applications challenge how breeding technologies are evaluated, which paradigmatically proceeds from a welfare perspective. Whether animal welfare will indeed improve may be unanswerable until proposed applications have been developed and tested sufficiently and until agreement is (...) reached on how to conceptualize animal welfare. Moreover, even if breeding technologies do improve animal welfare, they might be objected to on other ethical grounds. Ethical perspectives on earlier animal biotechnologies are relevant for today’s breeding technologies and their proposed applications, but may need reinterpretation. The current paper applies the concept of telos, which previously figured mainly in debates on classical genetic engineering, to genomic selection and genome editing aimed at improving animal welfare. It critiques current accounts of telos and offers an alternative conceptualization that applies to recently proposed applications of breeding technologies. This account rejects both removing the desire to pursue characteristic activities and altering animal bodies in ways that compromise their ability to perform such activities, but conditionally allows increasing robustness against environmental stress. Our account of telos enriches ethical debate on these breeding technology applications by insisting on the connection between the good life, an animal’s constitution, and its activities, thus countering reductive conceptions of welfare. (shrink)

Environmental crises, which are consequences of resource-intensive lifestyles and are characterized to a large extent by both a changing climate and a loss of biodiversity, stress the urgent need for a global social-ecological transformation of the agro-food system. In this regard, the bioeconomy and bioeconomic innovations have frequently been seen as instrumental in addressing these grand challenges and contributing to more sustainable land use. To date, the question of how much bioeconomic innovations contribute to sustainability objectives remains unanswered. Against this (...) background, we study four bioeconomic innovations using the case study of animal production and manure utilization in relation to their potential contributions to a social-ecological transformation. The analysis is based on the application of analytical categories derived from the literature that assess the normativity of these innovations and their implicit cultural changes. The results show that the innovations examined manifest existing thought styles and the incumbent socio-technical regime rather than contribute to a more fundamental transition. In this respect, we stress the importance of evolving alterative ideas in innovation design, applying more integrative approaches, such as embedding innovation processes into transdisciplinary processes, and developing adaptive and reflective governance approaches. In return, bioeconomic innovations should adjust towards the design mission of a social-ecological transformation and include a multitude of actors to discuss and harmonize contesting imaginaries and ethical concerns. (shrink)

Against the background of high demand for protein-rich feed in the EU and the environmental degradation associated with intensive livestock farming, insect-based feed is discussed as a potential sustainable alternative to conventional feed. However, the establishment of such an innovation depends not only upon technical and economic feasibility, but also on social factors impacting acceptability. The aim of this paper was to determine the acceptability of different social actor groups towards the use of insects as livestock feed, and to gain (...) insights into value-based arguments leading to positive or negative attitudes and perceived benefits and risks. By means of qualitative content analysis, we analysed responses of an EU public consultation process linked to the authorization of insect protein in pig and poultry feed. We found a broad range of value-based arguments that influence the complex judgement process of acceptability that have been neglected in prior quantitative surveys. In particular, our results bring forward more critical voices, such as animal welfare concerns and scepticism that insect-based feed can contribute to a more sustainable livestock system. Based on these findings, we discuss whether insects as feed are a viable contribution to a sustainability-oriented transformation of the agri-food system. We conclude that under certain conditions (when raised on low-value organic side streams such as manure) insect-based livestock feed may contribute to incremental sustainability improvements. Overall, however, the innovation has limitations, not only in terms of regulatory conditions but especially with regard to ethical concerns. (shrink)

The integration of a Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approach to food systems can contribute to redirect research and innovation toward the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 - Zero hunger - as well as other intertwined SDGs. Even though the scientific literature bridging RRI and food systems has grown over the past years, no critical reviews of this scholarship are currently available. This paper fills this gap by producing a critical review of the scientific literature on RRI in food systems (...) that has been published between 2017 and 2023. Our search led to a selection of 47 research articles that were analysed for this review. Our findings show that studies in this scholarship have focused on the stages of inputs/agricultural production, with a focus on digital technologies for agriculture. When analysing the motivations for applying RRI, we found that this varied from reasons that are more market-related, such as increasing technologies’ societal acceptance, to a reorientation of food systems towards the tackling of societal challenges. Concerning the conceptualization of RRI in food systems, we found that scholars relied on a widely known definition, but its interpretation varied greatly among the studies. Finally, we analysed how RRI has been applied in this literature and found that while some scholars provided examples of responsible innovation, others applied it to analyse innovation governance, and others used RRI to analyze research projects or innovations to ‘improve’ their alignment with this concept. Overall, this literature review showed that there is a need to develop more collaborative and reflexive work to unlock RRI’s potential to inform policy and practice that can foster more responsive and inclusive food systems capable of achieving SDG2. (shrink)