A ‘vaccine’ against meat: When those who preach from the moral high ground are immoral.

Do you have allergies, or friends/family with allergies? Have you seen the impact of allergies on those around you? How would you feel if you had an allergy which made you ill every time you ate red meat? Now, how would you feel if you were intentionally infected with that vaccine for ‘moral’ reasons?
Imagine a world where someone suggests engineering a tick to infect people with a debilitating allergy to red meat on purpose. Not as a vaccine. Not to prevent illness. But to force people into giving up steak, lamb, and pork. This isn’t the plot from a dystopian science fiction movie. It’s a real argument put forth by academics. You can read their article by clicking here.
The condition is called alpha-gal syndrome (AGS). Tick species, like the Lone Star tick in the US or similar species worldwide, inject a sugar called “alpha gal” when they bite.
Months later, eating beef, pork, lamb (in some cases dairy) can trigger severe allergic reactions. The symptoms can include diarrhoea, vomiting, trouble breathing, or even life-threatening anaphylaxis.
It is not curable; once you have it, you have it. You will require lifelong vigilance and dietary restrictions. Medical authorities are concerned about AGS because it has ramifications for the quality of life of people.
A paper published in July in the Bioethics journal argues that if eating meat is ethically wrong, then deliberately spreading AGS is morally permissible, even mandatory. The authors describe AGS as a moral bioenhancer. A moral bioenhancer is the use of biological technology to improve individuals morally. In this paper, they argue that reducing red meat consumption is a moral aim that people should achieve. They go as far as to propose genetically editing ticks to carry and spread AGS more effectively
Let that sink in.
I am pro-medicine and pro-science. A vaccine that prevents a disease is one thing. The HPV vaccine, which will eventually eradicate the HPV virus, which causes most cervical cancers, is a great example of the benefit of vaccines. This, however, is a ‘vaccine’ against meat eating, so in this case, I am happy to be called an anti-vaxxer!
Do you have allergies, or friends/family with allergies? Have you seen the impact of allergies on those around you? How would you feel if you had an allergy which made you ill every time you ate red meat? Now, how would you feel if you were intentionally infected with that vaccine for ‘moral’ reasons?
Imagine a world where someone suggests engineering a tick to infect people with a debilitating allergy to red meat on purpose. Not as a vaccine. Not to prevent illness. But to force people into giving up steak, lamb, and pork. This isn’t the plot from a dystopian science fiction movie. It’s a real argument put forth by academics.
The condition is called alpha-gal syndrome (AGS). Tick species, like the Lone Star tick in the US or similar species worldwide, inject a sugar called “alpha gal” when they bite.
Months later, eating beef, pork, lamb (in some cases dairy) can trigger severe allergic reactions. The symptoms can include diarrhoea, vomiting, trouble breathing, or even life-threatening anaphylaxis.
It is not curable; once you have it, you have it. You will require lifelong vigilance and dietary restrictions. Medical authorities are concerned about AGS because it has ramifications for the quality of life of people.
A paper published in July in the Bioethics journal argues that if eating meat is ethically wrong, then deliberately spreading AGS is morally permissible, even mandatory. The authors describe AGS as a moral bioenhancer. A moral bioenhancer is the use of biological technology to improve individuals morally. In this paper, they argue that reducing red meat consumption is a moral aim that people should achieve. They go as far as to propose genetically editing ticks to carry and spread AGS more effectively
Let that sink in.
I am pro-medicine and pro-science. A vaccine that prevents a disease is one thing. The HPV vaccine, which will eventually eradicate the HPV virus, which causes most cervical cancers, is a great example of the benefit of vaccines. This, however, is a ‘vaccine’ against meat eating, so in this case, I am happy to be called an anti-vaxxer!
Meat is not evil.
Let’s be crystal clear, eating meat is not evil. After years of pro-vegetarian/vegan diets being promoted across various forms of media, meat is making a resurgence.
Red meat is nutritious and valuable, not an ethical stain. It’s one of the richest sources of high-quality protein, iron, zinc, vitamins, and essential nutrients that are difficult, sometimes impossible, to obtain in sufficient amounts from plant-based sources alone. Let’s not forget how good it tastes. For children, pregnant women, the elderly, and many others, meat isn’t optional, it’s essential for growth, energy, and health.
Millions of farmers around the world, mostly family-run operations, work tirelessly to raise animals the right way. They supply communities with healthy, sustainable food. To dismiss this as morally indefensible is both ignorant and insulting.
The Assault on Personal Choice
This proposed scheme isn’t persuasion. It’s coercion. It says: “If you won’t change willingly, we’ll take your freedom away with a bite.” That’s not bioethics, and it’s certainly not ethical. It’s body politics. No one should be forcibly altered to fit someone else’s moral agenda. Morals change, and one person or a group of persons can have a completely different moral code from another.
In medicine and law, consent is non-negotiable. From the Nuremberg Code to modern regulations, non-consensual biological interventions are strictly forbidden. Proposing engineered ticks to infect people with AGS is a brutal violation of bodily autonomy.
The farmers nightmare
If you raise cattle, sheep, or pigs, this idea is your worst nightmare. Your livelihood, and the rural communities built around it, could be destroyed. If AGS were widespread, demand for your products would collapse overnight.
If you or a loved one already battles a food allergy, you already know the daily reality. Struggling to find a suitable restaurant, label-reading paranoia, hospital visits, EpiPens. The constant worry that one bite of food could turn into hours on the toilet, or even in the worst case, death.
To toy with that reality for ideological ends is beyond reckless; it’s cruel.
The moral line is here; you are way over it.
This isn’t about vegetarianism or ethical dieting; we all have different dietary preferences. It’s about rejecting extremist ideas, which are so ethically bankrupt that even the most ardent vegan zealots should cringe. This proposal treats human beings not as citizens with rights, but as pawns to be bio-engineered for someone’s utopian vision.
We must stand firm: meat is not immoral. Allergies are not tools. Choice is sacred. My body, my choice.
Fighting Back
This radical argument must be exposed and condemned for its scientific absurdity, its ethical bankruptcy, and its disdain for freedom. If you’re a farmer, a consumer, a parent, or just someone who cherishes the simple right to eat what you choose, this is a scary dystopian scenario that these researchers propose.
It makes for an interesting moral debate, but that is where it should stay, as a moral debate. If these ideas were ever to be brought into action, then it would be a slight on our humanity.
You can read the report referenced here