The US has approved CRISPR pigs for food(technologyreview.com)
technologyreview.com
The US has approved CRISPR pigs for food
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/02/1116059/the-us-approves-crispr-pigs-for-food/
174 comments
> Sounds like the genetic editing is not necessary as long as the farm conditions are good..
And remember if you document or report on bad farm conditions in many US states, you’ll go to jail for telling the truth while the people running the farm do not.
And remember if you document or report on bad farm conditions in many US states, you’ll go to jail for telling the truth while the people running the farm do not.
source?
I assume they’re referring to ag-gag laws, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
Gives a reasonable background by the looks.
Parent poster may be referring to laws on the books that forbid the sale of videos depicting where animals are subject to harm or treated cruelly. I suspect that these laws were passed in response to animal snuff videos a few years ago, but the law could be used to prosecute an activist, I guess - although it might also demonstrate the point the activist was making in order for a prosecution to pass.
https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-legal...
https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-legal...
w/r/t the HIV thing - there are HIV immune populations in Scandinavia who have a natural mutation affecting CCR5, so there is at least some reason to believe it’s safe to edit or knock out.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14636691/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14636691/
That is interesting.
Do Scandinavians have compensatory mutations on other proteins, which allows them to have a mutant CCR5?
Presumably CCR5 exists for reason other than attracting HIV.
Do Scandinavians have compensatory mutations on other proteins, which allows them to have a mutant CCR5?
Presumably CCR5 exists for reason other than attracting HIV.
It's dangerous to assume that everything in biology exists because it's useful in some way. Some things are just spandrels* that came along for the ride, vestigial, or otherwise neutral features. Not everything exists because it provides an evolutionary advantage.
*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
If a receptor is used as an entry point by a common virus and disabling it prevents infection but evolution has kept it around (cells spend energy actively expressing it, not having it encoded in the genome) then you can assume that there is a function provided by the receptor.
Turns out, CD163 already has a known function.
A spandrel not only has to have obvious function but removing it has to not be detrimental. I'm questioning the bar that is being used to say that it's not detrimental.
Unless humanity was on the brink of starvation and this was the only known way to increase food production then no it's not dangerous to be cautious.
On the other hand, I think it's dangerous to assume that a protein only has one function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_moonlighting
Turns out, CD163 already has a known function.
A spandrel not only has to have obvious function but removing it has to not be detrimental. I'm questioning the bar that is being used to say that it's not detrimental.
Unless humanity was on the brink of starvation and this was the only known way to increase food production then no it's not dangerous to be cautious.
On the other hand, I think it's dangerous to assume that a protein only has one function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_moonlighting
If you’re going to assume something, assuming neutrality seems the more dangerous assumption. Chesterton’s gene.
I don’t believe so. I looked into it a bit more, and it looks like homozygous variant carriers are more susceptible to other types of infection (West Nile is specifically cited), but I don’t see anything showing the variant causes issues with CCR5s other critical functions. I do think a knockout is probably a bad idea based on further reading, but modification seems like a promising path.
I meant a compensatory mutation on another receptor or protein besides CD163. I kinda meant it rhetorically. It's not an easy thing to answer.
> The pigs were assessed at approximately 205 days in age. Pigs can live up to 20 years. Would be good to test the long term effects and the effects over multiple generations.
It would be good to test for those things if the concern was for the long-term health of the pigs. The concern is whether or not they produce safe meat. Somewhere between most and all of the pork I've eaten in my life came from pigs less than a year old.
It would be good to test for those things if the concern was for the long-term health of the pigs. The concern is whether or not they produce safe meat. Somewhere between most and all of the pork I've eaten in my life came from pigs less than a year old.
I understand that. But maybe at 205 days you won't detect a change which would more easily detectable later. Maybe we don't know exactly what to look for, but if something breaks over the long term that would give a clue.
They also only looked at the health of one generation, along with the number of offsprings from that first generation. What happens after 10 generations? 100? Could there be cumulative epigenetic effects from deleting this gene?
They also only looked at the health of one generation, along with the number of offsprings from that first generation. What happens after 10 generations? 100? Could there be cumulative epigenetic effects from deleting this gene?
I really really hate that the science behind GMO’s gets clouded by the business practices of some of these companies.
You can separate the 2. Being anti gmo is being anti science. Decrying all GMO as bad, unhealthy, or whatever is as illogical as trying to make any blanket statement about any food. It just so happens that this one gets headlines.
We should be concerned about the businesses like Monsanto. But that is completely different.
Personally I have been trying to avoid any product that goes out of its way to claim “non gmo” because it just signals to me that they don’t care about sustainability and science.
It’s almost as bad (and sometimes worse) than the “organic” crap.
You can separate the 2. Being anti gmo is being anti science. Decrying all GMO as bad, unhealthy, or whatever is as illogical as trying to make any blanket statement about any food. It just so happens that this one gets headlines.
We should be concerned about the businesses like Monsanto. But that is completely different.
Personally I have been trying to avoid any product that goes out of its way to claim “non gmo” because it just signals to me that they don’t care about sustainability and science.
It’s almost as bad (and sometimes worse) than the “organic” crap.
"Being anti gmo is being anti science"
No, it isn't. As scientists we know how little we know of complex biological systems. This is bio-engineering based on rickety models.
Especially in times where the US is all about 'trade balances' , would it not suite them to take onboard some of the precautionary principles adopted in other parts of the world when it comes to health and safety?
No, it isn't. As scientists we know how little we know of complex biological systems. This is bio-engineering based on rickety models.
Especially in times where the US is all about 'trade balances' , would it not suite them to take onboard some of the precautionary principles adopted in other parts of the world when it comes to health and safety?
From the other side of the pond, when your chieftain wonders aloud again why the Europeans don't buy your beef, or your chicken, or now your pork: This here, is the reason.
We like our beef clean, our chickens unchlorinated, and our pigs without heavily experimental GMO modification, thank you very much.
Not because we are anti-science. Because the US has a horrible track record when it comes to how far you can go with caveat emptor.
We like our beef clean, our chickens unchlorinated, and our pigs without heavily experimental GMO modification, thank you very much.
Not because we are anti-science. Because the US has a horrible track record when it comes to how far you can go with caveat emptor.
So in other words there is nothing wrong with the GMO as an abstract principle, it is merely the actual GMOs on the market today that are bad in almost every instance.
No… that is not what I said at all.
I have yet to see a single instance of any actual health concerns raised from eating GMO food.
It has turned into marketing bullshit.
Again there has to be a clear separation between the science behind GMO and the business practices. They are very different discussions that need to happen but instead we are painting all of it with a negative light.
I have yet to see a single instance of any actual health concerns raised from eating GMO food.
It has turned into marketing bullshit.
Again there has to be a clear separation between the science behind GMO and the business practices. They are very different discussions that need to happen but instead we are painting all of it with a negative light.
>I have yet to see a single instance
OK, here is a single instance: lots of people are concerned about glyphosate residues in food, and GMO technology is the only thing that allows those food plants to even survive the amount of glyphosate being sprayed on them.
OK, here is a single instance: lots of people are concerned about glyphosate residues in food, and GMO technology is the only thing that allows those food plants to even survive the amount of glyphosate being sprayed on them.
That is not a problem with the act of making GMO's in the first place, which again is the point that I am trying to make here.
If the product that had these modifications is perfectly safe without being sprayed with it, the science behind the creation of that GMO is still sound. The problem is what is being done to it after the fact.
Meaning, it being GMO itself is irrelevant and goes back to the business practices. Grouping that into an "Anti GMO" crusade just continues to further an anti-science narrative.
If the product that had these modifications is perfectly safe without being sprayed with it, the science behind the creation of that GMO is still sound. The problem is what is being done to it after the fact.
Meaning, it being GMO itself is irrelevant and goes back to the business practices. Grouping that into an "Anti GMO" crusade just continues to further an anti-science narrative.
We should be genetically modifying the pest species, not the crops. We should stick to going after the species that specialize in eating domesticated plants, like the corn borer or the Colorado potato beetle. Keep a small population “safe” on some remote island or a lab somewhere if they ever need to be reintroduced for some reason, but use knockout drive to eliminate them elsewhere.
I, for one, welcome our new mutant prionic insectoid overlords.
> Again there has to be a clear separation between the science behind GMO and the business practices.
Discussing the science is worthless until you can solve the business practices.
Discussing the science is worthless until you can solve the business practices.
Then why require GMO labeling on food?
We don't require labeling for basically any other concerns about business practices and yet everyone seems to care about this one. When I buy chicken it doesn't have a sticker on it sayin "this chicken was probably kicked a few times". or slave labor was used on this chocolate. There are other voluntarily done labeling against both of those, but not a requirement to say it.
The problem is, the narrative is grouping them together. The general narrate is "concern over what it going into our bodies" which has nothing to do with business practices.
We don't require labeling for basically any other concerns about business practices and yet everyone seems to care about this one. When I buy chicken it doesn't have a sticker on it sayin "this chicken was probably kicked a few times". or slave labor was used on this chocolate. There are other voluntarily done labeling against both of those, but not a requirement to say it.
The problem is, the narrative is grouping them together. The general narrate is "concern over what it going into our bodies" which has nothing to do with business practices.
> We don't require labeling for basically any other concerns about business practices
Maybe we should. Then again, pretty sure both of those are completely illegal anyway. (Not that that stops it entirely, but somehow I'm not convinced lying about it would be the thing to stop those actors.)
Maybe we should. Then again, pretty sure both of those are completely illegal anyway. (Not that that stops it entirely, but somehow I'm not convinced lying about it would be the thing to stop those actors.)
Right I mean the chocolate one is illegal. The chicken one, honestly not fully sure since Purdue keeps getting exposed but idk if they actually have had legal issues? But my point with both of those is, as bad as those would be they don't have an impact on your health eating the product.
Regardless, I don't disagree that we should have some labeling on business practices behind the food that we eat as long as it is actually communicating what needs to be communicated instead of just fear mongering.
"GMO Free" (or requiring it to say it has GMO) tells the consumer absolutely nothing. Its meaningless. All it does is try to sow fear about a thing that its existence itself is not the problem.
"Forbids farmers from using last years seeds", "Uses increased herbicide" like the example the other person mentioned, or whatever that actually communicates what the business concern is to the consumer would be great.
But that is not what we are doing here with labeling GMO.
Regardless, I don't disagree that we should have some labeling on business practices behind the food that we eat as long as it is actually communicating what needs to be communicated instead of just fear mongering.
"GMO Free" (or requiring it to say it has GMO) tells the consumer absolutely nothing. Its meaningless. All it does is try to sow fear about a thing that its existence itself is not the problem.
"Forbids farmers from using last years seeds", "Uses increased herbicide" like the example the other person mentioned, or whatever that actually communicates what the business concern is to the consumer would be great.
But that is not what we are doing here with labeling GMO.
"But my point with both of those is, as bad as those would be they don't have an impact on your health eating the product"
Depends. Stressed animals produce food with stress hormons included.
Depends. Stressed animals produce food with stress hormons included.
Not sure where you are from but in Switzerland you can very well choose these things from a product.
It's very unlikely a chocolate without a fairtrade label to be slavery free. Kinda easy to avoid that. So easy to pick to slavery one
We have a few relevant labels you find on ever meat. It's not as easy for meat as there are local variants without labels and high standards but in a supermarket in Switzerland you can literally pick by colour. To get the kicked chicken that never seen a grass halm you just buy the yellow or red package.
It's very unlikely a chocolate without a fairtrade label to be slavery free. Kinda easy to avoid that. So easy to pick to slavery one
We have a few relevant labels you find on ever meat. It's not as easy for meat as there are local variants without labels and high standards but in a supermarket in Switzerland you can literally pick by colour. To get the kicked chicken that never seen a grass halm you just buy the yellow or red package.
We've never had labeling for any of the food plant varieties produced by radiation exposure, including red grapefruit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
And yet there are plenty of reputable papers showing clear health benefits of organic food.
This has the potential to be really cool, and really beneficial to society.
It's a shame the people who want to do this the most are the people who want to treat the pigs the worst, and who care the least about potential side effects in humans.
It's a shame the people who want to do this the most are the people who want to treat the pigs the worst, and who care the least about potential side effects in humans.
There is no ethical way to use mammals .
It might sound a little extreme at first, but if you think it through I think it's the conclusion one has to reach when extrapolating from ones own experience to similar animals. Sure a cricket and I have not too much in common, but a orangutan and I, a dog, a pig?
It might sound a little extreme at first, but if you think it through I think it's the conclusion one has to reach when extrapolating from ones own experience to similar animals. Sure a cricket and I have not too much in common, but a orangutan and I, a dog, a pig?
Degrees of harm and justification are pointless.
> shame the people who want to do this the most are the people who want to treat the pigs the worst
When there is almost-perfect (and unnecessary) union between animal rights interests and the anti-GMO community, this is almost a necessity.
> and who care the least about potential side effects in humans
I see no evidence of this.
When there is almost-perfect (and unnecessary) union between animal rights interests and the anti-GMO community, this is almost a necessity.
> and who care the least about potential side effects in humans
I see no evidence of this.
> the pigs appear entirely immune to more than 99% of the known versions of the PRRS virus, although there is one rare subtype that may break through the protection.
Doesn't this just set the table for that rare subtype to become dominant?
Doesn't this just set the table for that rare subtype to become dominant?
Yes
Evading immunity doesn’t always mean you become dominant. It might not be as transmissible, worse at replicating, or not as compatible with the host. Basically, there may be reasons why it was the rare subtype that remain true even in the new environment
However, with a selective pressure that removes its rival subtypes, it's likely to become less rare, at least in areas such as pig farms.
>>That experiment [Chinese Crisper babies] on humans was widely decried as misguided.
Misguided? No, it’s criminal! It was widely criticized as deeply unethical, unprofessional and irresponsible. The guy was considered a rogue scientist and he was put in jail for many years.
So clearly it was not just ‘misguided’.
Misguided? No, it’s criminal! It was widely criticized as deeply unethical, unprofessional and irresponsible. The guy was considered a rogue scientist and he was put in jail for many years.
So clearly it was not just ‘misguided’.
I think it’s fine. I’m ready for heavily genetically modified humans given they volunteer for it.
I think your two statements are contradictory. Babies can't volunteer for anything
Engineer them to consent retroactively.
We will have total gene replacement at some point. Or atleast the vast majority of it.
and yet people with genetic disorders continue to have kids everyday, why is 1 side okay but not the other? Or maybe both are not okay?
Parents can volunteer the baby. And babies are easily renewable.
This is just so that they can pack even more pigs into a factory farm.
How is that possible?
Are the pigs going to grow vertical or something?
Are the pigs going to grow vertical or something?
I, they already stack the floors vertically, putting them in matrix style boxes wouldn't be that surprising
Square pigs. The movie Space Truckers was prophetic.
I can already see CRISPR Bacon™ in our future.
I’d flip it:
If I ran a bacon company and I didn’t have CRISPR pigs I’d advertise in large red print
“CRISPR Free”
Or
“Non-genetically modified”
People are afraid of lab grown meat already, they’ll be terrified of CRISPR meat
My competition won’t be able to advertise the same
If I ran a bacon company and I didn’t have CRISPR pigs I’d advertise in large red print
“CRISPR Free”
Or
“Non-genetically modified”
People are afraid of lab grown meat already, they’ll be terrified of CRISPR meat
My competition won’t be able to advertise the same
Sure. And I'd advertise in large print, "PRRS Virus Free"
Considering the prevalence of PRRSV, it would be difficult for farms with non-CRISPRed pigs to say the same.
Scare tactics can work both ways here.
Considering the prevalence of PRRSV, it would be difficult for farms with non-CRISPRed pigs to say the same.
Scare tactics can work both ways here.
Farms without immune pigs can still claim it. Do some sampling tests, culling etc and call the product "virus free". But calling modified pigs not modified is tougher, I think.
If this becomes common it will be illegal to label food as gmo free
That's possible. I don't know the current status of it, but in the 90s the FDA had ruled that dairy farms which didn't inject their cows with supplemental bovine growth hormone (BST) couldn't put that on the label. Their argument was that putting "BST-free" on a label suggested that BST might make the milk less healthy in some way, and the FDA had ruled that it didn't, so you weren't allowed to market your milk in a way that could give that impression.
Kind of bizarre, considering that food advertising routinely suggests all sorts of good or bad things about products, like the idea that if you drink a certain brand of beer or drive a certain model of car you will be surrounded by hot models. But there's long been a revolving door between Big Ag and departments like the FDA and USDA, so not exactly surprising that the FDA would go to bat for a Big Ag Pharma product.
Kind of bizarre, considering that food advertising routinely suggests all sorts of good or bad things about products, like the idea that if you drink a certain brand of beer or drive a certain model of car you will be surrounded by hot models. But there's long been a revolving door between Big Ag and departments like the FDA and USDA, so not exactly surprising that the FDA would go to bat for a Big Ag Pharma product.
I get it's a joke, but this won't be advertised to consumers. The current US administration (and previous ones to a lesser extent) oppose food labeling regulations. It's one of the main "non-tariff trade barriers" they complain about to the EU.
The EU already refuses to import American chicken (over sanitary practices) and has limitations on beef (over hormones).
They'll ban American pork entirely if we can't guarantee that the GMO pork are excluded.
They'll ban American pork entirely if we can't guarantee that the GMO pork are excluded.
What’s the idea behind it? Just anti consumer or is there a reasonable angle?
If someone doesn't care one way or another, the label is useless. If someone has a positive opinion, the label helps the consumer seek it out. If someone has a negative opinion, the label helps the consumer avoid the product. If they fight against labeling it is because they consider that the third group is or can become bigger than the second.
I mean, that's so vague that it can be said about anything: Some people think X is positive and will buy the product and some people think X is negative and won't buy the product. Pretty obvious.
The purpose of food labels is to increase safety, transparency and honesty around the contents of food. Companies who oppose safety, transparency or honesty and/or produce products with questionable contents will oppose labels and companies who support safety, transparency and honesty will support them. I don't know many end-consumers who oppose labels themselves. But they will oppose products that contain questionable ingredients, so transparency is bad for companies that produce those products.
The purpose of food labels is to increase safety, transparency and honesty around the contents of food. Companies who oppose safety, transparency or honesty and/or produce products with questionable contents will oppose labels and companies who support safety, transparency and honesty will support them. I don't know many end-consumers who oppose labels themselves. But they will oppose products that contain questionable ingredients, so transparency is bad for companies that produce those products.
> and companies who support safety, transparency and honesty will support them.
Not quite.
Companies who can use the official labels to back up their own advertising campaigns will support them. (I know people who think that having a label for something is evidence of that thing being good or bad. No, it's evidence that someone thought that expending the effort to convince the government to have that label would have a positive return.)
Companies with more ability to amortize regulatory overhead (relative to their competitors) will support them, because for then that overhead is itself a competitive advantage.
Not quite.
Companies who can use the official labels to back up their own advertising campaigns will support them. (I know people who think that having a label for something is evidence of that thing being good or bad. No, it's evidence that someone thought that expending the effort to convince the government to have that label would have a positive return.)
Companies with more ability to amortize regulatory overhead (relative to their competitors) will support them, because for then that overhead is itself a competitive advantage.
like gluten free on corn chips
> The purpose of food labels is to increase safety, transparency and honesty around the contents of food.
USDA Organic label is rampant with fraud, and just having thr USDA label on it isn't a guarantee of trust. Similarly, the AHA endorsing oils blatantly bad for the heart is also similar example how labeling doesn't promote trust necessarily. Labels can and do lie, quite often even.
USDA Organic label is rampant with fraud, and just having thr USDA label on it isn't a guarantee of trust. Similarly, the AHA endorsing oils blatantly bad for the heart is also similar example how labeling doesn't promote trust necessarily. Labels can and do lie, quite often even.
I just want the label to tell me what's in the product. I can then make my own decision as to whether I think that's healthy or not.
> just want the label to tell me what's in the product
You will never, ever get that. It's simply impossible. Label games are the biggest legal tug-of-war between consumers, regulators, vendors, and the industries.
When I began reading about labeling and its regulation, and all the bullshit tricks that are played to "stay compliant" but also lie out their asses to the consumer, and hide everything from us, I concluded that there is no way to truly read a label properly.
It basically comes down to a question of whether you trust this vendor or provider to give you a quality product. If you do not trust, then do not purchase. If they play games and lose trust, then do not purchase. Once you have a decent-sized blacklist, then there is no reason not to patronize those survivors.
You will never, ever get that. It's simply impossible. Label games are the biggest legal tug-of-war between consumers, regulators, vendors, and the industries.
When I began reading about labeling and its regulation, and all the bullshit tricks that are played to "stay compliant" but also lie out their asses to the consumer, and hide everything from us, I concluded that there is no way to truly read a label properly.
It basically comes down to a question of whether you trust this vendor or provider to give you a quality product. If you do not trust, then do not purchase. If they play games and lose trust, then do not purchase. Once you have a decent-sized blacklist, then there is no reason not to patronize those survivors.
I'm genuinely curious to learn more. Do you have any good, reputable sources that you can recommend reading? (No videos please.)
That's the double edged sword. Requiring labeling doesn't prevent label fraud, and pretending label fraud is rare is either naive or obtuse.
Oversight is then called for (eg USDA organic) which itself can still be frauded around, especially when dealing with sources outside of the US.
I'm reminded of a tiktok that had raw chicken labeled with a particular weight at Walmart. When they weighed it on a checkout scale, it didn't match the weight the label had. On multiple packages.
Oversight is then called for (eg USDA organic) which itself can still be frauded around, especially when dealing with sources outside of the US.
I'm reminded of a tiktok that had raw chicken labeled with a particular weight at Walmart. When they weighed it on a checkout scale, it didn't match the weight the label had. On multiple packages.
So basically, vague "it is impossible to make inspections"?
The median label is transparent and honest but that's not a guarantee, especially when marketing gets involved. Plenty of companies will make statements that are true but opaque, dishonest, and unrelated to safety. And they'll support any labeling standard that helps them along those lines.
The generic arguments against that sort of thing are distortion when the category boundaries are a bit off from where they should be, and overhead where any time you do anything there's extra compliance paperwork and delays.
Overhead in particular can be rather stifling. For example environmental reviews for large projects have reached a "the process is the punishment" level of overhead.
Overhead in particular can be rather stifling. For example environmental reviews for large projects have reached a "the process is the punishment" level of overhead.
Eats into profits and increases accountability.
I believe they prefer the term “pro-business.”
Are you declaring first use?
The new job at McDonald's: CRISPRer - your one job is to take the bacon and grill it crispy.
We could also just stop breeding genetically modified sentient animals for protein and directly synthesize protein...
Mmm, a patty of bacteria. You can CRISPR the bacteria to taste better too!
Or just eat vegetables.
Or crispr yourself to photosynthesize.
You lack the surface area to do much more than photosynthesize a snack's worth of calories.
Then crispr yourself some leaves as well
Could we not just... not confine the pigs in spaces about as big as their bodies?
Kurzgesagt had a very interesting video[0] about the fact that it wasn't really that much more expensive to make sure we ate torture-free meat.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sVfTPaxRwk
Kurzgesagt had a very interesting video[0] about the fact that it wasn't really that much more expensive to make sure we ate torture-free meat.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sVfTPaxRwk
The majority of consumers aren't willing to spend a penny on that.
In Switzerland where you can tell on every piece of supermarket meat what kind of farming/standard it is trough a easy to follow colour code and some kinda Trustable labels, you very well see customer pick the more expensive ones.
Same thing in Austria, clear labelling, good availability, people are buying it.
Nobody in Spain does because none of their supermarkets has any concept for labelling the meat standard
So it's easy to say nobody would if they didn't really try
Same thing in Austria, clear labelling, good availability, people are buying it.
Nobody in Spain does because none of their supermarkets has any concept for labelling the meat standard
So it's easy to say nobody would if they didn't really try
[deleted]
Most consumers don't care where their meat comes from.
Meat is a status symbol food. Most consumers want it as cheap as possible so they can consume as much of it as possible. Because it's a status symbol food. Eating meat every night is seen as a status symbol.
Meat is a status symbol food. Most consumers want it as cheap as possible so they can consume as much of it as possible. Because it's a status symbol food. Eating meat every night is seen as a status symbol.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Culbertson says gene-edited pork could appear in the US market sometime next year. He says the company does not think pork chops or other meat will need to carry any label identifying it as bioengineered... Genus edited pig embryos to remove the receptor that the PRRS virus uses to enter cells.
What would be required to test retail pork product for the presence of this receptor?
Along the lines of https://www.plasticlist.org/report
What would be required to test retail pork product for the presence of this receptor?
Along the lines of https://www.plasticlist.org/report
We launched.. [a] project: to test 100 everyday foods for the presence of plastic chemicals.. We formed a team of four people, learned how this kind of chemical testing is performed, called more than 100 labs to find one that had the experience, quality standards, and turnaround time that we needed, collected hundreds of samples, shipped them, had them tested, painstakingly validated the results, and prepared them to share with you. Over time our effort expanded to nearly 300 food products. It took half a year and cost about $500,000.
And you find it strange the EU doesn’t buy it “food”
One step closer to making cystypigs from the game the outer worlds
https://theouterworlds.fandom.com/wiki/Cystypig
https://theouterworlds.fandom.com/wiki/Cystypig
> the pigs appear entirely immune to more than 99% of the known versions of the PRRS virus, although there is one rare subtype that may break through the protection.
If there's already a variant of the virus that can overcome the edit, then without additional measures it will simply go from 1% of the case to 100% and the disease is going to be as prevalent as before and the benefit of the tech will be null after just a few years.
(Except that it will draw negative light on CRISPR-based gene editing , slowing down actual progress. That's the curse of GMO: companies making them for bad reasons and reducing collective trust in what is a very promising and important technology for long term food security)
If there's already a variant of the virus that can overcome the edit, then without additional measures it will simply go from 1% of the case to 100% and the disease is going to be as prevalent as before and the benefit of the tech will be null after just a few years.
(Except that it will draw negative light on CRISPR-based gene editing , slowing down actual progress. That's the curse of GMO: companies making them for bad reasons and reducing collective trust in what is a very promising and important technology for long term food security)
good day to be a vegan.
Will this make the bacon crispier?
does this mean they can create a kosher pig? huge business opportunity there.
You’d have to CRISPR parts of the Torah to accomplish that.
Lol, achieving the neccesary characteristics (cloven hooves and rumination), i am not sure that thing would be called a pig anymore.
[deleted]
>Regulations have eased since then, especially around gene editing, which tinkers with an animal’s own DNA rather than adding to it from another species, as is the case with the salmon and many GMO crops.
And people wonder why EU ( and UK ) doesn't allow much US agriculture import.
And people wonder why EU ( and UK ) doesn't allow much US agriculture import.
Much of that is reasonable concern, but at least some of it is silly superstition. For instance, Germany doesn't permit the irradiation of most foods except dried herbs and spices. Irradiation is a perfectly safe way of increasing the safety and shelf life of food. Despite this, regulations on which foods if any this is permitted for vary greatly from country to country, influenced by how weirded out the uneducated public feels about it.
> influenced by how weirded out the uneducated public feels about it.
So it's one of those "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" things?
So it's one of those "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" things?
I wish more people understood how much of what they consume is radiated at some point…
The alternative to radiation is mixing less poop into your meat etc.?
You understand that the majority of "food science" is designed to allow increasingly lazier and sloppier food handling and allowing it to still be palatable/not kill too many people right?
Don't fall into the "lower cost" idea either, being lazier and sloppier means higher corporate profits and not lower consumer prices (for worse food).
Compare the grass fed/ranged (produced on farms 1/10th the size of the US equivalent) BigMac in Germany versus the one you get anywhere in the US, which do you think is healthier and tastier? They are basically the same price to the consumer mysteriously...
You understand that the majority of "food science" is designed to allow increasingly lazier and sloppier food handling and allowing it to still be palatable/not kill too many people right?
Don't fall into the "lower cost" idea either, being lazier and sloppier means higher corporate profits and not lower consumer prices (for worse food).
Compare the grass fed/ranged (produced on farms 1/10th the size of the US equivalent) BigMac in Germany versus the one you get anywhere in the US, which do you think is healthier and tastier? They are basically the same price to the consumer mysteriously...
This is the ignorance I was talking about. There are many reasons to irradiate food besides substandard handling. For instance, potatoes can be irradiated to inhibit sprouting, increasing how long you can store them. And imported fruits can be irradiated to prevent the spread of insects and other pests (without needing to use far riskier pesticides.)
You proved my point actually.
Neither of those things is actually useful as an eater of food?
You want less fresh food and from sketchier sources yet you think those are virtues?
Neither of those things is actually useful as an eater of food?
You want less fresh food and from sketchier sources yet you think those are virtues?
They are useful to people who buy food (who hasn't had some potatoes sprout in a cabinet?), and to society generally. Insects are a fact of fruit, to call that "sketchy" is just ignorant.
Sprouted potatoes is a sing its time to get some new ones... you want to eat horded 6 month old potatoes glhf
I don't eat fumigated strawberries so replacing fumigated strawberries with irradiated strawberries is... not useful?
I don't eat fumigated strawberries so replacing fumigated strawberries with irradiated strawberries is... not useful?
This is a case where the science evolved to justify a pre-decided narrative. This was absolutely necessary for an unsustainable food industry in an overly financialised nation(guess which). Don't waste your breath arguing logically. Just try your level best to ensure it doesn't occur in your local food economy, for the near future. Eventually, the GMO folks will reap.
If the potatoes last longer without going bad, then there's no reason to replace them prematurely. You have a predicted narrative that any preservation method you aren't comfortable is intrinsically bad because it lowers food quality, but I can guarantee you there are countless other forms of food preservation you have no problem with.
It comes down to superstition.
It comes down to superstition.
What sort of regulation do you think should apply to germ line editing to inactivate a particular gene?
Like is a blanket ban the only reasonable approach?
Like is a blanket ban the only reasonable approach?
European consumers seem to not want factory farms that produce such low quality food that it needs to be CRISPRed (as is the case with this story) just to be kept alive long enough.
I also am in that camp, I don't want to eat pork raised in unsanitary conditions and then sold to me at top dollar (because lying/obscuring about sourcing).
I also am in that camp, I don't want to eat pork raised in unsanitary conditions and then sold to me at top dollar (because lying/obscuring about sourcing).
Then you should want regulations about how the pigs are raised, not banning the use of CRISPR.
> Then you should want regulations about how the pigs are raised
We have those. EU animals have "five freedoms".
We have those. EU animals have "five freedoms".
As an EATER of food what is the benefit of CRISPR/GMO?
There answer after a good 40 minutes of searching is... nothing.
It's a technology 100% in service of being lazier/sloppier for industrial scale food production and in service of IP restricting the food supply in favor of shareholder X or Y.
"but we can make tasteless US tomatoes on even more inappropriate cropland!"
...
Great for my stock portfolio to screw over developing countries but useless for me as a first world eater of food.
No proof of existence of a benefit.
There answer after a good 40 minutes of searching is... nothing.
It's a technology 100% in service of being lazier/sloppier for industrial scale food production and in service of IP restricting the food supply in favor of shareholder X or Y.
"but we can make tasteless US tomatoes on even more inappropriate cropland!"
...
Great for my stock portfolio to screw over developing countries but useless for me as a first world eater of food.
No proof of existence of a benefit.
Uh. Healthier animals.
This specific approval is for a gene therapy to prevent PRRSV infection - a major porcine virus and one that regularly infects pigs in the EU.
It has nothing to do with mistreatment of animals or factory farming.
This specific approval is for a gene therapy to prevent PRRSV infection - a major porcine virus and one that regularly infects pigs in the EU.
It has nothing to do with mistreatment of animals or factory farming.
poor husbandry is the primary objection to US food products
the chicken has to be chlorinated because it has literally been produced covered in faeces
this would seem to be enable it to become even worse
the chicken has to be chlorinated because it has literally been produced covered in faeces
this would seem to be enable it to become even worse
So don't import US food products if it scares you. That's a separate issue from whether to allow CIRPRed livestock.
Again, this disease regularly affects pigs in Europe and causes immense animal suffering.
Again, this disease regularly affects pigs in Europe and causes immense animal suffering.
> So don't import US food products if it scares you.
this is exactly the position of the EU, UK governments
and is one of the few policies that is universally supported by their populations
this is exactly the position of the EU, UK governments
and is one of the few policies that is universally supported by their populations
The EU and UK both import food from the US.
Some US food products are banned for concerns about safety, but they're hardly unique - the US also bans some food products from the EU and UK that are considered unsafe in the US.
None of that has to do with whether or not countries should allow CRIPRed livestock to be raised domestically.
Some US food products are banned for concerns about safety, but they're hardly unique - the US also bans some food products from the EU and UK that are considered unsafe in the US.
None of that has to do with whether or not countries should allow CRIPRed livestock to be raised domestically.
no GM crops, no milk with growth hormone (nearly all of it), no beef with growth hormone (nearly all of it), no chlorinated chicken (nearly all of it), no washed eggs (nearly all of them)
and now pork will end up on that list too
> None of that has to do with whether or not countries should allow CRIPRed livestock to be raised domestically.
I couldn't care less if US'ians want to eat shit (here, literally)
and now pork will end up on that list too
> None of that has to do with whether or not countries should allow CRIPRed livestock to be raised domestically.
I couldn't care less if US'ians want to eat shit (here, literally)
This seems to be a small edit to a single receptor to keep pigs from getting a particular disease by not allowing the virus to enter their cells. It's hard to see how helping pigs stay healthy could have a negative impact on human health, but a lot of people are against eating things that are 'unnatural' in any sense.
Are the pigs healthy? I think the sibling comment got to the heart of this a lot more directly.
There's an economic reward for keeping the pigs healthy enough to be harvested while spending the least amount of money on their environment. If this lowers the threshold for "healthy enough", or allows them to survive in an even worse, cheaper to maintain environment, that could introduce or exacerbate human health risks even if this change itself cannot.
There is also the animal welfare element, that has resonance to a lot of people. I am by no means a vegetarian, do not in principle object to killing animals for food. But the sheer scale of animal suffering in our food system gives me pause. I am reluctant to accept innovations that would allow us to increase the degree of suffering in exchange for an increase in output or decrease in price.
There's an economic reward for keeping the pigs healthy enough to be harvested while spending the least amount of money on their environment. If this lowers the threshold for "healthy enough", or allows them to survive in an even worse, cheaper to maintain environment, that could introduce or exacerbate human health risks even if this change itself cannot.
There is also the animal welfare element, that has resonance to a lot of people. I am by no means a vegetarian, do not in principle object to killing animals for food. But the sheer scale of animal suffering in our food system gives me pause. I am reluctant to accept innovations that would allow us to increase the degree of suffering in exchange for an increase in output or decrease in price.
Agreed. I grew up on a farm and spent some time in confinement hog buildings in the 80s, when that meant a few hundred hogs in one building. That setup would look roomy and quaint compared to how it's done today.
Livestock are resilient and adaptable, and can be miserable and unhealthy while being healthy enough to be profitable. Corporate farm organizations like to claim that farmers have an incentive to keep their animals healthy, but that doesn't mean the incentive is to keep them in tip-top condition. The best ratio of profit/cost might be juuuust above "almost dead." Just as human employers tend to look at the low-cost end of the scale when judging employee cost versus employee happiness/productivity, livestock farmers tend to look to the low-cost end of the scale to improve that profit/cost ratio.
I eat meat, some of which I raise and butcher myself, and I'm not generally a big fan of regulations. But I'd be fine with some tighter rules on animal welfare. What's done to cattle in kosher slaughterhouses looks like unnecessary torture to me, for instance. But if consumers want to eat animals that had a reasonably healthy and pleasant existence and a humane end, it should probably be on them to identify farms and butchers that provide that and buy from them. They do exist, but they're small because most people don't care about what they don't see. I'm definitely not excited about any technology which helps to further hide it from them.
Livestock are resilient and adaptable, and can be miserable and unhealthy while being healthy enough to be profitable. Corporate farm organizations like to claim that farmers have an incentive to keep their animals healthy, but that doesn't mean the incentive is to keep them in tip-top condition. The best ratio of profit/cost might be juuuust above "almost dead." Just as human employers tend to look at the low-cost end of the scale when judging employee cost versus employee happiness/productivity, livestock farmers tend to look to the low-cost end of the scale to improve that profit/cost ratio.
I eat meat, some of which I raise and butcher myself, and I'm not generally a big fan of regulations. But I'd be fine with some tighter rules on animal welfare. What's done to cattle in kosher slaughterhouses looks like unnecessary torture to me, for instance. But if consumers want to eat animals that had a reasonably healthy and pleasant existence and a humane end, it should probably be on them to identify farms and butchers that provide that and buy from them. They do exist, but they're small because most people don't care about what they don't see. I'm definitely not excited about any technology which helps to further hide it from them.
Healthy animals and industrial meat production are at two opposing ends of the same spectrum. You can have one but not both.
You absolutely can have both. The threshold to pass for at least "decently healthy" isn't that high and prices aren't that much higher than "normal" industrial farming.
> It's hard to see how helping pigs stay healthy could have a negative impact on human health
I think that view underscores the differences in approach and beliefs in the US and Europe (not that both views aren't represented on both sides of the Atlantic, just distributed differently). The Europeans frequently have the view: Prove to us that this is not dangerous. Otherwise we prefer not taking the chance that you might be wrong. The US version in our eyes is frequently: "You can't prove it's not safe".
In this case you could risk introducing even worse diseases, who have previous been kept in check by the competition from the viruses you're now eliminating.
I think that view underscores the differences in approach and beliefs in the US and Europe (not that both views aren't represented on both sides of the Atlantic, just distributed differently). The Europeans frequently have the view: Prove to us that this is not dangerous. Otherwise we prefer not taking the chance that you might be wrong. The US version in our eyes is frequently: "You can't prove it's not safe".
In this case you could risk introducing even worse diseases, who have previous been kept in check by the competition from the viruses you're now eliminating.
>>
It's hard to see how helping pigs stay healthy could have a negative impact on human health,
<<
Really? You don't see a logical flaw in your reasoning there?
Really? You don't see a logical flaw in your reasoning there?
Because CRISPR isn’t nearly that precise or exact, it always has unforeseen random fall off effects.
Also, who says that particular receptor ONLY prevents entry of a specific virus? It surely has other purposes that aren’t understood.
Biology is always messy, but most impacts of off-target changes would be for the pig. When I look at references like this, it's hard to see what there is going to somehow affect humans:
https://molecularsciences.org/content/the-challenges-of-cris...
I've yet to see anyone give anything but unknowns as their answer for why it's bad, or what might happen. Nobody seems to have any specific pathway for bad things to happen in mind.
https://molecularsciences.org/content/the-challenges-of-cris...
I've yet to see anyone give anything but unknowns as their answer for why it's bad, or what might happen. Nobody seems to have any specific pathway for bad things to happen in mind.
> Like is a blanket ban the only reasonable approach?
From my pov as a fellow EU citizen a blanket ban for this kind of creepy stuff is the only viable option. Let the Americans become Frankesteins for all I care, it’s their choice, all in the name of “science”.
From my pov as a fellow EU citizen a blanket ban for this kind of creepy stuff is the only viable option. Let the Americans become Frankesteins for all I care, it’s their choice, all in the name of “science”.
To the extent they don't import, it's much more about protecting their own farm economy. Denmark for example has a lot of large pig farms, they don't want US pork competing with that.
> And people wonder why EU ( and UK ) doesn't allow much US agriculture import.
I mean, this is completely false. 8% of all EU agriculture imports is from USA and has grown year over year for decades.
> U.S. agricultural exports to the European Union reached a record $12.8 billion in 2024, a 1-percent increase from 2023
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
I mean, this is completely false. 8% of all EU agriculture imports is from USA and has grown year over year for decades.
> U.S. agricultural exports to the European Union reached a record $12.8 billion in 2024, a 1-percent increase from 2023
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
While this 8% are limited to "sorts of" and may not include "CRISPRed" or "chlorine-bleached".
Just a thought from me, as European, in case someone asks for the thinking behind strict import EU rules:
We just don't want to eat things that we believe may cause (abstract) harm, and, sorts of liability of the state and society to care for you and (God beware) your kids if some adverse effects are pinpointed to food/imports or misregulation. I think it's ok like that.
Just a thought from me, as European, in case someone asks for the thinking behind strict import EU rules:
We just don't want to eat things that we believe may cause (abstract) harm, and, sorts of liability of the state and society to care for you and (God beware) your kids if some adverse effects are pinpointed to food/imports or misregulation. I think it's ok like that.
Was just commenting on the blanket claim that EU "doesn't allow" much ag import from the US, which is plainly wrong.
It isn't plainly wrong as if they would allow much, then the share would be higher, as it is the case now for example Brazil (~9pc) or UK (>20pc).
If one think further, the share of export/import to/from non-eu countries is (rounded) 9pc of total EU's agriculture expenses. So, EU do not import much from US and others because they do not want certain techniques and methods and have their inner market and production anyway. Like it's the case with chlorine chickens and washed eggs. So, they don't allow such things to be sold to customers, which is infact not allowing import.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
If one think further, the share of export/import to/from non-eu countries is (rounded) 9pc of total EU's agriculture expenses. So, EU do not import much from US and others because they do not want certain techniques and methods and have their inner market and production anyway. Like it's the case with chlorine chickens and washed eggs. So, they don't allow such things to be sold to customers, which is infact not allowing import.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
I guess you can claim that the 3rd-largest agriculture import source is "not much" if it is making you feel better about something. But I think that even the EU bureaucrats themselves would recognize that it is a very significant amount and continues to grow.
Third largest is not much, if it accounts 8pc of 8pc imported, and 92pc are produced within EU itself. Do you say it's much?
[deleted]
emorning3(1)
Oh man, this is bad. How many studies do we have some the consumption of CRISPR anything by humans ?
Mmmm CRISPR bacon
Viruses often use immune or other surface proteins as receptors presumably because they are important (can't be down-regulated too much).
For the pigs, it looks like they deleted just the SRCR5 domain of the CD163 protein. CD163 is used by macrophages to scavenge the hemoglobin-haptoglobin complex.
A 2017 article (of 6 pigs?) suggests that the engineered pigs are resistant to the virus "while maintaining biological function" although I don't see any experiments comparing hemoglobin-haptoglobin scavenging ability of engineered vs unedited pigs. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5322883
This 2024 study (of 40 pigs) found 'no significant difference' in a panel of health measures and meat quality, except that the engineered pigs had statistically significantly more greater backfat depth than the edited animals. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles...
Interestingly, the mean weight of live pigs is slightly higher for edited pigs but lower for dead pigs. Total fat slightly higher for the edited pigs. These numbers are not statistically significant (but only a small number of pigs were tested).
The pigs were assessed at approximately 205 days in age. Pigs can live up to 20 years. Would be good to test the long term effects and the effects over multiple generations.
This paragraph is striking:
> Under the conditions of these studies, neither homozygous nor heterozygous or null pigs inoculated with PRRSV showed the acute clinical signs typically observed in commercial pigs and had overall low depression and respiratory scores (1). This may be explained by the fact that these pigs were sourced from a high-health farm and managed with minimal stress, which differs from disease expression under commercial conditions.
Sounds like the genetic editing is not necessary as long as the farm conditions are good..