A New Framework for Animal Biotechnology
Published: October 2025
In an era of rapid climate change and growing global population, the demand for animal protein continues to surge. By 2050, projections indicate a 73% increase in global meat and egg consumption and a 58% rise in dairy consumption compared to 2011 levels 1 . This soaring demand collides with a stark reality: more than 20% of animal protein is lost to disease globally, creating immense pressure to reinvent animal agriculture 1 .
Biotechnology offers powerful solutions, from gene editing for disease-resistant cattle to precision breeding for more resilient livestock. Yet, these innovations are caught in a regulatory web where the process used—the specific biotechnique—often triggers more scrutiny than the product it creates or the risks it poses 1 . This article explores the urgent case for "agnostic governance," a transformative approach that could determine whether the future of food is defined by scientific potential or regulatory gridlock.
The term "biotechnology" encompasses a vast spectrum of tools. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, it is broadly defined as "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof to make or modify products or processes for specific use" 1 . This definition includes established practices like artificial insemination and molecular diagnostics, as well as cutting-edge techniques like recombinant DNA (rDNA) and CRISPR gene editing 1 .
Advanced genomic tools enable marker-assisted breeding, allowing producers to select animals with ideal genetic profiles for traits like disease resistance, heat tolerance, and feed efficiency 2 3 . Gene editing, particularly CRISPR-Cas systems, allows for precise, targeted modifications to an animal's genome without necessarily introducing foreign DNA 2 7 .
Biotechnology is developing novel feed additives and enzymes that improve digestibility and reduce environmental impact. Researchers are exploring how combining different feed additives can create synergistic benefits for animal health and productivity 7 .
This area holds perhaps the greatest potential. Biotechnologies are leading to advanced vaccines and the prospect of genetically engineering animals for innate resistance to devastating diseases, which could dramatically reduce the global loss of animal protein 1 .
| Research Reagent | Primary Function in Research |
|---|---|
| CRISPR-Cas9 System | A gene-editing "scissors" that allows for precise, targeted cuts in an animal's DNA to deactivate or modify specific genes 2 3 . |
| Molecular Markers | Identifiable DNA sequences used as flags to track the inheritance of desirable traits (e.g., disease resistance, meat quality) in breeding programs 2 1 . |
| Recombinant DNA (rDNA) | Artificially constructed DNA combinations from different organisms, used to create transgenic animals or to engineer microbes for paratransgenesis 1 . |
| Synthetic Biology Parts | Standardized genetic components used to design and assemble novel biological systems in microbes or animal cells for advanced functions 8 . |
The current global regulatory landscape for these technologies is deeply fragmented. A critical distinction made by frameworks like the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety defines "modern biotechnology" specifically as the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques and other methods that overcome natural reproductive barriers 1 .
This "process-based" trigger means that a genetically engineered animal is subject to an entirely different, and often more arduous, regulatory pathway than an animal with similar traits developed through traditional breeding, even if the latter technique is less predictable.
As one industry expert noted, if the public understands the benefit of a technology, "the technology becomes less of a burning issue for them," suggesting that a product-focused assessment would be more logical 7 .
This process-based system can disadvantage the very technologies that might be best suited to solving a problem, simply because they trigger a complicated regulatory framework 1 .
To understand the real-world implications of governance, consider the challenge of African trypanosomiasis, a devastating parasitic disease spread by tsetse flies that affects both humans and livestock across sub-Saharan Africa. This disease makes cattle farming unsustainable in vast regions, contributing to poverty and food insecurity. Several biotechnological approaches have been proposed to combat it, vividly illustrating the governance dilemma.
This method involves radiation to sterilize male tsetse flies, which are then released into the wild to mate without producing offspring, suppressing the population. It does not involve genetic modification and has been successfully used in Zanzibar 1 .
This "modern biotechnology" approach uses recombinant DNA to genetically modify symbiotic microbes living inside the tsetse fly. The modified microbes would produce compounds that kill the trypanosome parasite inside the fly, preventing disease transmission 1 .
This approach involves using rDNA techniques to directly alter the cattle genome to give them innate resistance to the parasite. This could be a permanent solution for protecting livestock 1 .
Despite all three approaches being associated with potential harms and benefits, only the latter two—paratransgenesis and GE cattle—are subject to the exceptional regulatory requirements triggered by "modern biotechnology" 1 . The SIT technique, while effective in some contexts, is a continuous control measure that requires ongoing releases of sterilized insects. In contrast, GE-resistant cattle could provide a more durable and cost-effective solution.
However, because the most precise and potentially efficient solutions involve rDNA, they face significant barriers to development and deployment, particularly in developing economies where the disease is most prevalent. This creates a perverse situation where the most suitable technology may be shelved in favor of a less efficient one, solely to avoid regulatory complications 1 .
Lower Regulatory Hurdles
High Regulatory Hurdles
Highest Regulatory Hurdles
Moving beyond the current impasse requires a new model. Drawing from scholarship in science and technology studies, experts propose five essential features for responsible governance of agricultural biotechnology 4 .
| Feature | Core Principle | Practical Application |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Commitment to Candour | Honesty about scientific uncertainties, motivations, and potential conflicts of interest 4 . | Openly disclosing the limitations of knowledge and the real-world performance expectations of a new technology. |
| 2. Recognition of Values & Assumptions | Acknowledging that value-based choices are embedded in both science and risk assessment 4 . | Creating forums where scientists can reflect on how their own values shape research questions and methods. |
| 3. Broad Involvement | Including diverse knowledge sources, from ecologists to farmers and citizens, in decision-making 4 . | Using citizen juries or public dialogues early in the technology development process ("upstream engagement"). |
| 4. Consideration of Alternatives | Evaluating a wide range of technological and policy options to address a given problem 4 . | Using tools like Multicriteria Mapping to compare alternatives against a flexible set of social, economic, and environmental criteria. |
| 5. Preparedness to Respond | Building adaptive and flexible systems that can learn and evolve with new information and experience 4 . | Establishing ongoing monitoring systems and review mechanisms that can adapt regulations as a technology matures. |
These pillars shift the focus from how a product is made to what it does and what kind of future we want to build. This agnostic framework would evaluate a disease-resistant cow based on its health, environmental impact, and safety, rather than on the specific laboratory technique used to create it.
The global conversation is slowly shifting. The 2025 Animal AgTech Innovation Summit in Dallas highlighted ongoing advancements in precision livestock genetics and the integration of CRISPR into breeding programs, with a parallel discussion on the importance of transparent communication with the public 7 . Concurrently, numerous scientific conferences throughout 2025 are dedicated to "Global Regulations Governing Genome Editing in Food Animals," signaling a critical reevaluation of existing policies 9 .
The path forward is not about abandoning regulation, but about making it smarter, more equitable, and more effective. Agnostic governance is not a deregulatory agenda; it is a framework for ensuring that the best and most sustainable solution—whether it involves a traditional technique or a modern genomic tool—can be developed and deployed to meet the profound challenges of feeding a growing world while safeguarding our planet 1 4 .
The goal is a system that judges a new technology by the future it creates, not just the tools used to build it.