I just finished reading Beneficial Bloodsucking by Crutchfield and Hereth, and I’m stunned. Not by the philosophical gymnastics, but by the sheer detachment from reality. The authors argue that Alpha-gal Syndrome (AGS), a tickborne meat allergy, is a “moral bioenhancer” and that we should promote its spread to curb meat consumption. As a nurse practitioner and the mother of a child with AGS, I find this argument not only absurd but deeply offensive.
Let me paint you a picture: my son was bitten by a lone star tick in our backyard in Tennessee. For years he would wake up vomiting for no apparent reason. Looking back he had several ER visits for GI distress or respiratory distress. Luckily after the first anaphylactic reaction, I was able to recognize it as a food allergy and with the help of his ENT who also has AGS was able to diagnose AGS. Now, every meal is a minefield. Birthday parties, school lunches, family cookouts, each one requires vigilance, label-reading, and emergency meds. He’s 11 years old and terrified of food. He’s the toughest kid I know but is afraid any cross contamination could result in another critical care ambulance ride to the Children’s Hospital.
But sure, let’s call that “moral enhancement.”
The authors claim AGS is “safe” as long as you avoid meat. That’s like saying diabetes is safe as long as you avoid sugar. It’s a chronic condition with unpredictable reactions, limited research, and no cure. They even suggest genetically engineering ticks to spread AGS more efficiently. Have they considered the other diseases ticks carry? Ehrlichiosis, tularemia, Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, some of which can be fatal. But hey, if it stops people from eating bacon, it’s worth it, right?
They argue that AGS doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. Tell that to my son, who didn’t consent to a tick bite. Tell that to families who now live in fear of anaphylaxis. The authors liken AGS to a vaccine—except vaccines are designed to protect people, not punish them.
And let’s talk about the ethics. Promoting a disease to enforce a moral stance? That’s not bioethics. That’s bio-coercion. It’s one thing to advocate for plant-based diets. It’s another to suggest weaponizing nature to force compliance.
I’m all for reducing meat consumption. I’ve seen the health benefits. But I also believe in informed choice, not involuntary suffering. AGS is not a tool for moral progress. It’s a potentially life threatening medical condition that disrupts lives, isolates children, and burdens families.
So no, I won’t be cheering for genetically modified ticks. I’ll be advocating for prevention, education, and compassion. I’ll be praying for their souls because ethics without empathy is not just flawed, it’s inhumane.”
—A mother, a nurse practitioner and advocate for food allergy protection
