Authors
Bart Gremmen
Wageningen University and Research
Vincent Blok
Wageningen University and Research
Abstract
In 2035 global egg demand will have risen 50% from 1985. Because we are not able to tell in the egg whether it will become a male or female chick, billons of one day-old male chicks will be killed. International research initiatives are underway in this area, and governments encourage the development of an alternative with the goal of eliminating the culling of day-old male chicks. The Netherlands holds an exceptional position in the European egg trade, but is also the only country in the European Union where the downside of the egg sector, the practice of killing day-old male chicks, is a recurrent subject of societal debate. ‘Preventing the killing of young animals’ and ‘in ovo sex determination’ are the two alternative approaches available to solve this problem. It is clear that both approaches solve the problem of killing day-old male chicks, either by keeping them alive or by preventing them from living, but they also raise a lot of new animal welfare-related dilemmas. A thorough analysis was undertaken of these dilemmas and the results are presented in this article. The analysis resulted in an ethical framework based on the two main approaches in bioethics: a consequentialist approach and a deontological approach. This ethical framework was used to develop an online survey administered to ascertain Dutch public opinion about these alternative approaches. The results show that neither alternative will be fully accepted, or accepted by more than half of Dutch society. However, the survey does provide an insight into the motives that are important for people’s choice: food safety and a good treatment of animals. Irrespective of the approach chosen, these values should be safeguarded and communicated clearly.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10806-018-9712-0
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,274
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - Oxford University Press.
Practical Ethics.Peter Singer - 1979 - Cambridge University Press.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan & Mary Midgley - 1986 - The Personalist Forum 2 (1):67-71.
Practical Ethics.John Martin Fischer - 1983 - Philosophical Review 92 (2):264.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Ethics of Laying Hen Genetics.Mia Fernyhough, Christine J. Nicol, Teun van de Braak, Michael J. Toscano & Morten Tønnessen - 2020 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 33 (1):15-36.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Killing Animals in Animal Shelters.Clare Alexandra Palmer - 2006 - In The Animal Studies Group (ed.), Killing Animals, edited by The Animal Studies Group. Champaign: Illinois University Press. pp. 170-187.
Business Ethics in the Netherlands: A Survey.Muel Kaptein - 2003 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 12 (2):172-178.
Business Ethics in the Netherlands: A Survey.Muel Kaptein - 2003 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 12 (2):172–178.
Guinevere’s Choice.Margaret H. Nesse - 1995 - Human Nature 6 (2):145-163.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-01-16

Total views
12 ( #783,506 of 2,448,640 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,192 of 2,448,640 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes