No, that’s not satire. It’s a peer-reviewed paper published in Bioethics on July 22, 2025, titled:
“Beneficial Bloodsucking: On the Moral Permissibility of Tick-Induced Meat Allergy”
The authors? Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth, both faculty at Western Michigan University.
Their claim? That the spread of Alpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS)—a tick-borne allergy to mammalian meat—might be ethically justifiable, even morally desirable, because it reduces red meat consumption and therefore greenhouse gas emissions.
Their words:
“The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only known treatment is the avoidance of all mammalian meat. Thus, they eat less red meat, which is an improvement in their capacity for moral behavior.”
A Real Allergy, A Real Paper, A Real Agenda
Alpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS) is a medically confirmed condition triggered by the bite of the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum). The tick introduces galactose-α-1,3-galactose—a sugar molecule found in mammalian tissue—into the bloodstream.
This exposure causes the immune system to produce IgE antibodies that later trigger a delayed allergic reaction when the person consumes beef, pork, lamb, dairy, or gelatin. Symptoms range from hives, nausea, and vomiting to anaphylactic shock. Reaction time is delayed, often 3 to 8 hours after ingestion, making diagnosis difficult.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 110,000 suspected AGS cases were identified between 2010 and 2022. A 2023 internal CDC estimate suggests up to 450,000 Americans may be undiagnosed. The numbers are growing—especially in the Southeast and Midwest—but now expanding into Minnesota, Wisconsin, and even southern Canada, as tick populations move north with warmer weather.
This is not conspiracy. It’s confirmed public health surveillance.
“Moral Enhancement” by Tick Bite
Instead of calling for tick control or better public awareness, Crutchfield and Hereth suggest the exact opposite.
Their paper in Bioethics proposes that tick-induced meat allergy may constitute a “moral agential neuroenhancement” (MANE)—a neurological intervention that improves moral decision-making.
In their logic, the allergic response to meat consumption forces people to stop eating beef or pork, which they interpret as a climate-positive behavioral shift. The authors cite IPCC data claiming livestock contribute 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and argue that reducing meat intake could slash emissions by 5–10%.
“If AGS reduces the capacity to consume red meat, and if consuming less red meat improves moral behavior by reducing harm, then its spread may be ethically permissible.”
The paper makes no direct call for engineering or releasing ticks. But it does suggest that not controlling their spread—i.e., allowing AGS to propagate naturally—might be “ethically defensible” as a form of non-consensual moral correction.
That’s not public health. That’s biopolitical coercion.
What They’re Not Telling You
The media backlash has been fast and clumsy. Slay News exaggerated the paper as a call to action. Social media posts calling it “eco-terrorism” went viral. But beneath the noise, the core claim remains intact:
Letting a disease spread that causes people to accidentally go vegan may be justified in the name of climate morality.
What they won’t say out loud: the data undermines their climate logic.
- According to a 2021 study by Quantis, regeneratively raised beef can be carbon-neutral or carbon-negative, thanks to soil carbon sequestration.
- The University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that properly managed cattle grazing could offset more CO₂ than it emits, challenging mainstream emissions narratives.
Meanwhile, lab-grown meat and plant-based alternatives rely on synthetic fertilizers, industrial monoculture, and high-energy inputs—often with higher net emissions than pasture-raised beef when measured across the full lifecycle.
But that’s not what these academics care about. Because this isn’t really about emissions. It’s about behavioral control.
Moral Bioenhancement Without Consent
This isn’t Crutchfield’s first rodeo. In a 2018 paper, he proposed pharmaceutical interventions—like SSRIs or oxytocin—to improve public morality by altering neurological chemistry. His past work framed “moral enhancement” as something that might need to be administered without consent, if public outcomes were severe enough.
Now it’s ticks instead of pills. But the logic hasn’t changed.
This is a philosophy of coercion by biology. Not persuasion. Not education. Just compliance through affliction.
And it’s being published in journals that policy researchers read.
Who Wins?
- Synthetic food investors, who benefit from rising anti-meat sentiment
- Big ag-tech firms, already lobbying for climate-based food restrictions
- Global meatpackers, who source ultra-lean, low-carbon beef from foreign suppliers while choking U.S. small producers with regulations
- Academic technocrats, who push for “ethical” behavioral engineering while dismissing sovereignty, choice, or dissent
And who loses?
- Independent ranchers
- Rural economies
- Actual public health
- Your ability to eat a steak without worrying if a tick bite changed your biology
The Meat Allergy Wasn’t the Endgame. It Was the Delivery System.
This isn’t science fiction. It’s peer-reviewed philosophy inching toward policy influence. If unelected academics can frame involuntary allergies as “moral upgrades,” don’t be surprised when regulatory agencies follow with “climate-compliant food protocols.”
First it’s a paper.
Then it’s a funding grant.
Then it’s a White House climate advisor quoting it at a USDA roundtable.
They don’t have to outlaw beef—if the ticks do it for them.
Before the ticks bite and the technocrats win—lock in your Rancher Direct Certified℠ beef at BeefMaps.com.
Get Beef You Can Trust—Dr. Kat Lindley’s handpicked box from Ebersole Cattle Co., packed with nutrient-dense, Rancher Direct Certified℠ beef raised the way nature and freedom intended.
0 Comments