Net Zero advocates propose ticks to induce red meat allergy as climate solution sparking backlash

• Two U.S. academics propose spreading lone star ticks to induce alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a red meat allergy, as a climate strategy.
• AGS triggers severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, via tick-borne alpha-gal molecules.
• AGS now affects up to 450,000 Americans, with cases rising due to tick expansion northward.
• CDC warns the syndrome can lead to fatal reactions via medications, not just food.
• Critics decry the proposal as reckless, ignoring risks of severe health consequences.

Two ethics professors at Western Michigan University’s Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth, have ignited outrage with a peer-reviewed paper proposing the deliberate promotion of ticks to trigger alpha-gal syndrome (AGS)—a red-meat allergy—to reduce meat consumption and combat climate change. Published in Bioethics, their “Beneficial Bloodsucking” argument frames AGS as a “moral bioenhancer,” asserting that inducing allergies to cattle, pigs and lambs could ethically “prioritize planetary health over personal choice.” The controversial stance has drawn sharp criticism, with opponents calling it a dangerous confluence of pseudo-science and ideological overreach.

The controversial proposal: Ticks as climate activists?

Crutchfield and Hereth argue that since consuming meat is “morally impermissible” due to climate impacts, policy should support proliferating lone star ticks (the primary vector for AGS) to deter meat-eating by causing allergic reactions. They advocate genetic editing of ticks to enhance their ability to transmit alpha-gal, the sugar molecule in tick saliva that triggers AGS. The paper states: “If promoting tickborne AGS prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, it is pro tanto obligatory.”

The idea hinges on three premises: It avoids infringing rights, promotes “virtuous” behavior (meat reduction) and combats climate change. However, critics dismiss these claims as reckless, noting AGS’s severe health risks. Unlike food allergies alone, AGS can cause fatal reactions to common medications containing alpha-gal, such as the cancer drug cetuximab and the anticoagulant heparin. At least 10 deaths linked to alpha-gal reactions have been recorded, most via medical products—not food.

Understanding alpha-gal syndrome: More than just a lunch problem

AGS forms when a tick bite introduces alpha-gal into a person’s bloodstream, priming the immune system to attack the molecule. Consuming red meat re-exposes sufferers to alpha-gal, triggering hives, vomiting, anaphylaxis, or even death. The syndrome—until recently rare—has ballooned in prevalence across the U.S. and Australia. The CDC estimates nearly 450,000 Americans may have AGS, driven by the lone star tick’s northward expansion into states like New York and Pennsylvania.

Hunters and outdoor enthusiasts are at heightened risk, but the burden extends far beyond diet. Sufferers must avoid gelatin, dairy and medications, complicating medicine and food systems. “This isn’t just a vegetarian nudge—it’s a drastic limitation on basic human activities,” said allergist Dr. Scott Commins of UNC School of Medicine, whose work shaped AGS research.

Ethical quicksand: When public health crosses into interventionism

The Michigan proposal enters ethical minefields. Unlike voluntary dietary choices, tick-borne allergies impose external bodily harm. Opponents liken it to eugenics or forced vaccination, lacking scientific or public consent. “You can’t ethically engineer plagues,” said ecologist Dr. Durland Fish, a Lyme disease researcher critical of the paper.

Moreover, the strategy is medically flawed. While AGS discourages red meat consumption, its deterrent effect on climate change is negligible. “Red meat accounts for about 5% of U.S. emissions,” countered University of Oxford climate researcher Dr. Marco Springmann. “This distracts from proven solutions like renewable energy and emissions caps.”

The academics also misrepresent AGS’s role in medicine. The syndrome harms millions who rely on alpha-gal-containing drugs (e.g., heparin for heart surgery), yet the paper omits this risk. “Their ‘moral obligation’ dismisses collateral damage,” said ethicist Dr. Rebecca Kukla, noting it violates medical oaths prioritizing patient harm minimization.

A growing crisis, both real and perceived

AGS’s rise isn’t solely due to academic schemes but habitat shifts and urbanization. Warmer winters allow ticks to thrive farther north, while outdoor recreation and urban wildlife encroachment increase exposure. “We’re seeing patients double every five years,” said Dr. Erin McGhan, Director of Immunology at Eurofins Viracor.

Yet Crutchfield and Hereth’s proposal exacerbates societal concerns. With viral misinformation already prompting precautionary (and unnecessary) dietary restrictions, their stance could fuel panic-driven avoidance of red meat. “This risks harmful self-diagnosis and malnutrition, especially in regions with limited food access,” McGhan warned.

“Moral bioenhancement” or bioethical collapse?

Crutchfield and Hereth’s paper underscores the urgent need for rigorous ethical debate in climate policy. While their goal—reducing environmental harm—is laudable, the means are medically and morally indefensible. Health precedes planetary stewardship; one cannot justify sacrificing lives—even indirectly—to achieve sustainability.

As more Americans grapple with AGS, misinformation from academics and the press amplifies fear. “We must prioritize science over sloganeering,” urged Dr. Shmerling in an interview. A public health crisis demands solutions grounded in evidence—not ideology.

In the end, the lone star tick is no climate savior—it’s a vector of legitimate worry. The real challenge remains balancing humanity’s survival with Earth’s. Tinkering with nature’s equations, even in the name of ethics, may have unforeseen—and unpalatable—consequences.

Sources for this article include:

TheDailySceptic.org

OnlineLibrary.Wiley.com

CDC.gov