Tick Bites in the U.S. Reach Alarming Rates

Every year, approximately thirty-one million people in the U.S. face tick bites, and this year, that figure might be on track to hit an all-time high. If certain radical ideas take hold, many Americans may end up ill and unable to consume meat.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported increases in emergency room visits for tick bites, marking the highest rates since 2017 in most areas, except for the south-central U.S. The Midwest, in particular, seems to be bearing the brunt of this issue.

This situation raises concerns due to the serious, sometimes debilitating illnesses caused by tick bites, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and the often misunderstood alpha-gal syndrome (AGS).

A paper published in mid-2025, supporting the intentional spread of AGS through genetically modified ticks, has resurfaced, gaining attention.

AGS is a severe allergy to alpha-gal, a sugar molecule found predominantly in mammals like cows and pigs. According to the CDC, when someone affected encounters alpha-gal via red meat or other mammalian products, their body sees it as a threat, triggering an allergic reaction. This allergy commonly arises from bites by the Lone Star tick.

It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of Americans currently struggle with AGS.

Two professors from Western Michigan University’s School of Medicine published an article titled “Beneficial Bloodsucking” in the journal Bioethics. They controversially suggested that tick-borne AGS might serve as a “moral bioenhancer,” encouraging reduced meat consumption.

According to Professors Parker Crutchfield and Blake Herres, eating meat, something humans have done for eons, is increasingly viewed as harmful due to its environmental impact and implications for animal welfare.

“AGS might compel those uneasy about eating mammalian meat to cut back,” they noted. “In turn, this leads to more ethical behavior.”

They didn’t just argue against halting the spread of tick-borne AGS; they maintained that promoting it could be seen as a moral duty. They emphasized, “We owe it to ourselves to explore and implement methods of advancing tick-borne AGS.” They compared this to a collective vaccination approach, suggesting such actions don’t infringe on rights but rather serve a greater good.

Crutchfield referenced a 2019 paper advocating for “moral bioenhancement” as something desirable even if covert and somewhat coercive.

This isn’t the first time the idea of using bioengineering to render humans incapable of meat consumption has emerged. A decade ago, bioethicist S. Matthew Liao mentioned concepts like reducing human height to lessen ecological footprints or using devices to induce meat intolerance through immune system stimulation.

In response to the 2025 paper, H. Sterling Barnett, Director of the Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy, expressed that promoting illnesses, irrespective of noble intentions like climate action, is morally objectionable. “Encouraging the spread of harmful diseases is ethically indefensible,” he stated.

A critical response published in March challenged the premises of Crutchfield and Herres’ paper, disputing their claims that introducing AGS would universally diminish animal suffering or that infecting humans intentionally is similar to vaccination.