Bloodsuckers in the Ivory Tower: The Morality of National Survival Against Anti-Meat Extremism! By James Reed and Richard Miller (Londonistan)

In a recent academic paper titled Beneficial Bloodsucking, published in Bioethics (DOI: 10.1111/bioe.70015), philosophers Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth propose that promoting the spread of alpha-gal syndrome, a tick-borne condition causing allergic reactions to red meat, could be morally obligatory as a means to reduce meat consumption. While the authors frame this as a bioethical intervention to address ethical concerns about animal agriculture, in my view, it raises serious questions about coercion, consent, and the potential erosion of cultural and economic traditions. This discussion critiques the proposal, arguing that it overlooks practical realities and risks undermining national food security and heritage, particularly in nations like the UK and Australia, where livestock farming is integral to rural economies and identity.

Crutchfield and Hereth argue that if meat consumption is morally impermissible, due to its impacts on animal welfare, the environment, and public health, then society has a duty to discourage it. They suggest alpha-gal syndrome, transmitted by the lone star tick and causing allergies to mammalian meat, could serve as a "moral bioenhancer." As they state: "If it is morally impermissible to consume mammalian meat, then it is permissible, and perhaps obligatory, to promote alpha-gal syndrome" (Crutchfield & Hereth, 2025, p. 3). They even discuss genetic engineering to enhance the syndrome's spread, positioning it as a tool for ethical progress.

This approach, while innovative in bioethical terms, strikes me as insanely problematic because it bypasses individual choice and consent. Unlike voluntary measures like education or incentives, it involves biological changes imposed without permission, potentially affecting immune systems permanently. In ethical terms, this resembles non-consensual medical intervention, which raises concerns under principles like autonomy in the Nuremberg Code or the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.

The authors' premise rests on the view that meat consumption is inherently unethical, often citing environmental impacts such as methane emissions from livestock, which account for about 14.5% of global greenhouse gases according to the FAO (2023). They also highlight animal welfare issues in intensive farming and health risks like heart disease linked to red meat overconsumption.

These concerns warrant discussion. For instance, reducing methane through sustainable practices, like rotational grazing or feed additives, could mitigate emissions without eliminating meat entirely, as demonstrated by UK initiatives under the Agriculture Act 2020, which promote regenerative farming. Nutritionally, red meat provides essential nutrients like vitamin B12, iron, and zinc, which are harder to obtain from plant-based sources, per NHS guidelines. A blanket discouragement ignores these benefits and the role of meat in balanced diets, especially in regions with limited arable land for alternatives.

Moreover, the proposal assumes universal agreement on meat's impermissibility, but ethical views vary. In cultural contexts like the UK and Australia, meat is tied to traditions such as Sunday roasts or festive meals, fostering social bonds. Economically, the livestock sector contributes £14 billion annually to the UK economy and employs over 500,000 people (AHDB, 2024). Sabotaging this through biological means could devastate rural communities, exacerbating food insecurity amid global supply chain vulnerabilities.

In nations reliant on domestic agriculture, food self-sufficiency is a cornerstone of sovereignty. The UK, for example, produces 60% of its beef and lamb domestically, supporting biodiversity through grazed landscapes that prevent soil erosion and wildfire risks (Natural England, 2023). Promoting a condition that deters meat consumption could disrupt this, increasing dependence on imports and exposing the nation to geopolitical risks, as seen in recent disruptions from conflicts and climate events.

The proposal's coercive element, using parasites to enforce dietary changes, evokes ethical dilemmas akin to historical forced interventions, though not equivalent in scale. It risks setting a precedent for bioethical overreach, where academic theories influence policy in ways that adopt ideological goals over individual rights. While Crutchfield and Hereth emphasise potential benefits, such as reduced animal suffering, the lack of consent undermines its moral foundation.

This paper, while from two specific authors, reflects broader trends in environmental ethics advocating radical interventions, such as gene editing for meat intolerance. Such ideas, if unchallenged, could influence policy, as seen in EU discussions on cultivated meat or carbon taxes on animal products.

Rather than biological coercion, ethical progress could come through innovation: subsidies for sustainable farming would be a good start. The UK government's Net Zero Strategy (2021) supports such measures, balancing environmental goals with economic viability.

In conclusion, while Crutchfield and Hereth's proposal invites important debate on meat ethics, its advocacy for non-consensual biological changes risks ethical overreach and harm to cultural and economic fabrics. Defending national traditions, through supporting farmers and promoting informed choices, is essential for resilience. Ideas that opt for ideology over autonomy deserve rigorous scrutiny, lest they erode the freedoms that define sovereign nations.

Crutchfield, P., & Hereth, B. (2025). Beneficial Bloodsucking. Bioethics. DOI: 10.1111/bioe.70015