A non-governmental organization (NGO) claims that requiring the AgResearch Ruakura Animal Containment Facility to create publicly accessible annual reports on its activities contributed to the cessation of its animal gene manipulation experiments and the facility’s closure in June 2025. This obligation to produce annual reports was instituted following a court case against Ruakura initiated by the NGO.
Psychology
Ruakura’s 2023 annual report, one of the more straightforward reports in a series listed on the GE Free New Zealand page, posed questions like: “Did the manipulations go according to plan Yes or No?”
If the manipulations did not proceed as planned, researchers were required to detail the negative impacts on animal welfare. The report cites adverse outcomes such as a gene-edited calf born blind, potentially due to unforeseen consequences of the gene edit.
Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free New Zealand, summarized AgResearch’s reports into two separate analyses. She informed The Ecologist that the reports documented gene-edited livestock suffering from chronic foot ailments, pneumonia, respiratory complications, fused organs, and deformities.
Bleakley, an organic farmer with a science and psychology degree and livestock of her own, described in her recent summary the Ruakura trials as continually failing to produce viable, healthy animals with commercial potential.
She forwarded her initial summary to the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and is contemplating sending the second. DEFRA has not confirmed receipt of the report.
Data
When asked if the transparency offered by the public reports, alongside her summaries, contributed to Ruakura’s closure, Bleakley affirmed this. She stated that her summaries, and the attention they garnered, effectively alerted New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Agency and Animal Ethics Committee, suggesting they were not fulfilling their responsibilities.
Nick Barraclough, chief legal counsel for New Zealand’s Institute for Bioeconomy Science Ltd., into which AgResearch was integrated in July 2025, stated that Ruakura’s closure was due to a “planned future development.” He noted that there was no plan to replace AgResearch Ruakura.
Mark Stevens, interim director of the UK’s Roslin Institute, part of the University of Edinburgh, has employed gene editing to develop pigs resistant to a prevalent and costly pig virus.
Stevens expressed that it would be feasible for the Institute to create similar annual reports as most data is already gathered. He acknowledged that greater transparency about research animals would be beneficial.
Altered
Stevens emphasized that Roslin’s research aims “to enhance the welfare of farmed animals, particularly by providing resistance to infectious diseases affecting millions globally.”
However, he noted that public disclosure of this information requires careful consideration to avoid breaching commercial confidentiality, given Roslin’s collaborations with commercial entities.
These collaborators include Genus plc for gene-edited disease-resistant pigs and Cobb-Vantress on gene-editing chickens to resist avian flu.
Stevens confirmed Roslin is the sole UK organization actively genome-editing—another term for gene editing—farm animals.
In 2025, Roslin cared for 925 chicks, 46 sheep, and 70 pigs that were genetically altered, Stevens told The Ecologist. He stressed that the animal “issues identified” in the GE New Zealand summary “do not reflect our experience at Roslin.”
Research
John Hammond, the incoming Roslin director and current research director at the Pirbright Institute, deferred to Stevens when questioned about Roslin producing similar reports. Pirbright specializes in animal-to-human virus research and does not gene edit animals aside from insects.
Christine Tait-Burkard, a senior research fellow at Roslin, and Simon Lillico, a Roslin research scientist, also opposed public annual reports.
Lillico argued that such reporting is already done and submitted to the government. “All procedures on research animals in the UK are licensed by the Home Office, with additional approval from an Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body, and data on each animal’s lifetime experience is collected and returned to the Home Office annually,” he explained.
Lillico added his surprise at AgResearch’s reported adverse effects from gene editing research, stating, “This has certainly not been our experience.”
The total number of animals used in scientific research is published annually by the University of Edinburgh and the UK Home Office, along with non-technical summaries of licensed projects.
Transparency
Tait-Burkhard highlighted that annual reporting could be problematic for gene editing projects that take several years, arguing that disclosing current research projects could risk being pre-empted by overseas labs.
She also mentioned she had not observed “any adverse consequences” from gene editing procedures and that “health issues do not occur often and do not differ from expected rates in standard husbandry.”
DEFRA did not respond immediately when asked if it would consider mandating similar annual reporting for UK facilities.
Peter Stevenson, chief policy advisor for Compassion in World Farming, expressed full support for requiring gene editing research institutes to produce regular public reports, particularly on adverse animal welfare impacts.
Penny Hawkins, head of the RSPCA’s animals in science department, also supported public annual reporting by farm animal gene editing facilities, stating: “I think those kinds of reports would certainly be beneficial for transparency.”
Eating
Hawkins added that direct benefits for animal welfare would only occur if “the reports led to better processes for ethical decision-making concerning gene editing, and a more robust harm-benefit analysis with regard to proposed projects” by regulators like the UK government’s Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
She said the reports would be valuable for various reasons from the RSPCA’s perspective, including informing policy and strategy and responding to government consultations.
Hawkins expressed her greatest concern that all ethical and welfare issues “will just be swept under the carpet and gene editing animals will be seen as the solution to diverse veterinary, housing, husbandry problems, and even climate change.”
She questioned, “why should it be the animal who is fundamentally altered in that way” instead of encouraging humans to change their eating habits?
A 2023 report by the UK’s Food Standards Agency found that consumers generally have “low awareness” of gene editing, with 75 percent unaware of it.
Sperm
The lack of transparency provided by New Zealand-style annual reports might leave consumers uninformed about current farm animal research and its implications for future food. This issue could worsen with government proposals to avoid labeling gene-edited animals.
The advocacy group Beyond GM has launched a legal challenge against the commercialization of gene-edited farm animals in England, with the case heard by the High Court in London in May, awaiting judgment.
This case addresses new regulations under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act of 2023, which critics argue eliminate transparency and labeling requirements for gene-edited plants in agriculture and food.
The European Union has shown reluctance to permit New Genomic Techniques, which include gene editing for farm animals, raising concerns about potential trade difficulties due to England’s non-alignment with the rest of the UK and EU.
Beyond risks to animals in research facilities, there are various concerns about the welfare of gene-edited animals once they, or materials like sperm and embryos, are available for sale to farmers.
Tolerance
There is significant concern that the industrial farming sector might exploit gene editing similarly to selective breeding: to increase meat, milk, and egg production. This process, according to welfare experts, has already led to chickens too heavy to walk, lameness and mastitis in dairy cows, and the production of more piglets than a sow can feed.
Selective breeding involves choosing animals with favorable traits and breeding them over time.
Stevenson added: “It’s very clear from the industry that one thing they want to do with gene editing is to push animals to higher productivity, faster growth, higher milk yields.” This could exacerbate existing harms from selective breeding for greater productivity.
Craig Lewis, North Europe commercial director for the Pig Improvement Company, a division of Genus plc., and chair of the European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders, believes gene editing will enhance disease resistance and climate tolerance. He noted that “it’s not so much the process or the tool, it’s what you’re doing it on and why.”
Unintended
Lewis explained that if gene editing were used to increase growth rates in isolation, it might negatively impact welfare, causing issues like lameness. But he asserted that farmers wouldn’t pursue such growth if it led to negative outcomes.
He highlighted an EFFAB code of practice promoting responsible breeding.
Lillico also stated that gene editing to boost productivity is unlikely, as selective breeding is already effective at enhancing production traits influenced by multiple genes.
The perspective from Hammond, Roslin’s incoming director, was slightly more nuanced. He believes most gene editing in farm animals will aim to improve overall productivity by enhancing disease resistance, climate tolerance, and efficiency of feed conversion, all of which could boost productivity.
Unintended consequences of gene editing remain a concern for farm animals.
Commercialisation
Friends of the Earth US will state in a new report that unintended genetic changes from genetic engineering pose significant animal welfare concerns.
These include health problems such as weakened immune systems, developmental abnormalities, reduced fertility, chronic pain, or increased disease susceptibility. Some animals might experience higher deformity rates or metabolic disorders that compromise their quality of life.
Dana Perls, a senior food and technology campaigner with Friends of the Earth US, cited a case where gene-edited dehorned cattle were unintentionally contaminated with antibiotic-resistant lab material discovered by chance.
“A researcher happened to conduct a full genome assessment, which isn’t always required.” The discovery that the cattle were antibiotic-resistant was “sort of an accident.”
Lewis argues that many gene editing risks are linked to the development or research phase, rather than when products are sold to farmers.
Ideas
Many issues cited in the New Zealand report, Lewis noted, “are identified during the development phase. If negative results occur, they would prevent progression to deployment.”
There are also concerns that beneficial gene editing, such as dehorning to eliminate painful horn removal, could encourage poor practices.
An earlier Friends of the Earth report suggested that gene-edited pigs for disease resistance or hornless cattle in crowded enclosures could perpetuate poor animal management, especially in intensive farming, compounding existing welfare issues.
Melanie Challenger, author of How to Be Animal and a researcher on the history of ideas, is a member of Animals in the Room, which seeks to include animal desires in processes affecting them.
Deliberation
Challenger argues that even if animals are edited solely for disease resistance or to remove horns, broader moral and ethical concerns arise, particularly given the profit-driven nature of the animal breeding sector.
She asserted: “From a justice perspective, industry should not lead something this ethically problematic.”
Challenger advocates for more public deliberation and involvement in gene editing decisions, including considering the animals themselves.
“I think they need to be more substantively present in decisions like this than they are currently.”
Consume
Opponents of gene editing suggest focusing on alternative commercial interests instead.
The government could support companies like Ivy Farm in the UK and UPSIDE Foods and Wildtype in the US, which are developing fish, chicken, and other proteins from cells, reducing the need for intensive livestock production.
Peter Singer, philosopher and author of Animal Liberation and Animal Liberation Now, emphasized to The Ecologist that focusing on scaling up cultivated animal protein production for mass consumption is preferable to gene editing food animals. “Yes,” he said. “Emphatically.”
He added: “Raising animals for food will always be inefficient, as they must consume more food than they yield. They also emit greenhouse gases, increase pandemic risk, and suffer greatly.”
This Author
Sophie Kevany is a freelance journalist contributing to The Guardian, Sentient Media, and other publications. She has previously worked for Dow Jones and Agence France Presse (AFP) and holds a master’s degree in journalism from Dublin City University. She has lived and worked in Ireland, the US, South Africa, France, Peru, and Spain.
This article was supported by a grant from the investigative agency AGtivist, which had no editorial control over the story.
Â
