[HN Gopher] The US has approved CRISPR pigs for food
___________________________________________________________________
The US has approved CRISPR pigs for food
Author : DocFeind
Score : 56 points
Date : 2025-05-03 14:32 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.technologyreview.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.technologyreview.com)
| andsoitis wrote:
| I can already see CRISPR Bacon(tm) in our future.
| janice1999 wrote:
| 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.
| barbazoo wrote:
| What's the idea behind it? Just anti consumer or is there a
| reasonable angle?
| conception wrote:
| Eats into profits and increases accountability.
| justin66 wrote:
| I believe they prefer the term "pro-business."
| estebank wrote:
| 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.
| ryandrake wrote:
| 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.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _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.
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| > 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.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| 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.
| jfengel wrote:
| 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.
| johnohara wrote:
| Are you declaring first use?
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| The new job at McDonald's: CRISPRer - your one job is to take
| the bacon and grill it crispy.
| charliebwrites wrote:
| 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
| nothercastle wrote:
| If this becomes common it will be illegal to label food as
| gmo free
| Aloisius wrote:
| 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.
| ksec wrote:
| >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.
| maxerickson wrote:
| 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?
| Natsu wrote:
| 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.
| 486sx33 wrote:
| 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.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| 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.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Healthy animals and industrial meat production are at two
| opposing ends of the same spectrum. You can have one but
| not both.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| 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.
| emorning3 wrote:
| >> 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?
| barbazoo wrote:
| None of those pigs are "healthy". If we didn't pump them
| full of antibiotics they would never see the
| slaughterhouse.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > 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.
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| 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).
| thayne wrote:
| Then you should want regulations about how the pigs are
| raised, not banning the use of CRISPR.
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| 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.
| Aloisius wrote:
| 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.
| blibble wrote:
| 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
| Aloisius wrote:
| 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.
| blibble wrote:
| > 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
| Aloisius wrote:
| 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.
| blibble wrote:
| 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)
| paganel wrote:
| > 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".
| barbazoo wrote:
| In the name of keeping up unsustainable lifestyles because
| one could not fathom to eat anything but abused animals.
| It's part of the culture.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| > 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...
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| 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.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Was just commenting on the blanket claim that EU "doesn't
| allow" much ag import from the US, which is plainly wrong.
| theGeatZhopa wrote:
| 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...
| lupusreal wrote:
| 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.
| 486sx33 wrote:
| I wish more people understood how much of what they consume
| is radiated at some point...
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| 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...
| lupusreal wrote:
| 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.)
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| 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?
| lupusreal wrote:
| 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.
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| 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?
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _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?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| 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.
| comrade1234 wrote:
| This is just so that they can pack even more pigs into a factory
| farm.
| 486sx33 wrote:
| Oh man, this is bad. How many studies do we have some the
| consumption of CRISPR anything by humans ?
| DesaiAshu wrote:
| We could also just stop breeding genetically modified sentient
| animals for protein and directly synthesize protein...
| barbazoo wrote:
| Or just eat vegetables.
| shutupnerd0000 wrote:
| Vegetables are alive too and scream when cut. We must starve.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Source?
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| That vegetables are alive? Seems obvious plants are
| living.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Straw man response
|
| > Vegetables are alive too and scream when cut.
| AzzyHN wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > 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?
| nothercastle wrote:
| Yes
| stavros wrote:
| 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
| unfitted2545 wrote:
| good day to be a vegan.
| nerdjon wrote:
| 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.
| hollerith wrote:
| 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.
| nerdjon wrote:
| 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.
| hollerith wrote:
| >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.
| nerdjon wrote:
| 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.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| > 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.
| nerdjon wrote:
| 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.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| > 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.)
| nerdjon wrote:
| 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.
| lazystar wrote:
| does this mean they can create a kosher pig? huge business
| opportunity there.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-03 23:01 UTC)