Animal rights activism masquerading as science reached new heights: it would be “morally obligatory” to distribute the tick that causes red meat allergies.

In the paper “Beneficial Bloodsucking“, recently published in Bioethics, the authors argue—under the guise of philosophical rigour—a deeply disturbing thesis: that deliberately infecting humans with a tick-borne syndrome (Alpha-Gal Syndrome) to make them intolerant to red meat, thereby reducing its consumption, is a legitimate moral act.

Their argument claims that, since meat consumption is morally wrong due to animal suffering, and since the infection induces a specific food aversion, infecting the population would serve as a “moral bioenhancer”—a lesser evil compared to continuing meat-eating habits.

Without the premise of “unavoidable suffering,” the entire argument collapses

At first glance, given the outrageous nature of the proposal, one might mistake it for an intellectual provocation. But it is a provocation that found its way into a peer-reviewed academic journal, and therefore deserves a clear, well-founded, and unequivocal response.

First and foremost, the paper’s entire reasoning rests on the ideological assumption that eating meat is morally reprehensible because it causes animal suffering. This is an extreme claim, disproven by years of research, legislation, and responsible livestock practices—regularly documented on this site.

Indeed, we continually emphasise how modern European supply chains, particularly in Italy, adhere to stringent standards of animal welfare, health monitoring, traceability, and environmental sustainability. The very concept of “sacrifice”—which we use in place of slaughter—implies a system of ethical and technical norms that safeguards the animal throughout its productive life and regulates its end-of-life in ways that minimise suffering. Without the premise of “unavoidable suffering,” the entire argument collapses.

Deliberately infecting human beings is unacceptable

It is utterly unjustifiable to deliberately infect human beings under the pretext of preventing a practice—meat consumption—that is not morally unacceptable when properly regulated, as the authors claim. Ethics cannot be based on ideological images of the world, but must be grounded in verified facts, moral pluralism, and the protection of individual dignity.

Furthermore, the notion that it would be acceptable to deliberately infect part of the population to steer them away from meat is a clear violation of personal integrity. In no recognised legal or medical framework is it acceptable to inflict biological harm on an individual—without consent—for social or ideological purposes.

Such a proposal violates the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 3 and 5), the Nuremberg Code (which prohibits all non-consensual medical treatment), and, crucially, the Oviedo Convention, along with modern bioethical guidelines—principles the paper’s authors should have been well aware of, and which the journal should have reviewed before accepting the article.

This bizarre proposal undermines individual autonomy, imposes an unjustifiable health risk, and normalises a deeply authoritarian view, in which the individual’s body is subordinated to an abstract goal imposed by others.

The rhetoric of the “moral bioenhancer” is one of the text’s most dangerous aspects

The use of “lesser evil” rhetoric, dressed up in the new terminology of “moral bioenhancement”, is among the most dangerous elements in the entire piece. The history of ethical thought teaches us that it is not morally acceptable to sacrifice individuals for some supposedly higher end—especially when that end is interpreted through ideological or one-sided lenses.

In this case, it is considered acceptable to induce a food-related illness, which can carry serious health risks, to save animals from a fate that is already regulated, monitored, and humanised.

No ethics, no bioethics—just the “banality of evil”

The logic underlying these grotesque claims erases the moral proportionality between actions and consequences, and completely ignores the foundational values of any personalist ethics: dignity, integrity, and individual responsibility.

Moreover, the paper doesn’t merely suggest a dietary shift or promote cultural incentives—it seeks to turn human beings into tools. In this view, the person loses intrinsic value and becomes a vehicle—a sort of biological container to be modified to achieve an external objective.

This is the very definition of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”—not evil shouted from the rooftops, but evil disguised as technical rationality, moral efficiency, or optimised solutions.

Furthermore, normalising such a proposal sets a disturbing cultural and political precedent: if we accept today that a person’s body can be altered to change their eating preferences, we may soon accept coercive treatments to reduce energy usage, modify reproductive choices, or reshape cognitive and behavioural inclinations.

An extreme form of moral engineering that undermines the foundations of bioethics itself

Ultimately, to endorse the idea that one can induce a disease to drive social change marks a dangerous slide toward a collectivist vision that annihilates the individual in the name of a cause.

This paper is not just an unfortunate provocation—it is a proposal that, even as a theoretical hypothesis, undermines the very foundation of bioethics. It constitutes an extreme form of moral engineering, seeking to manipulate the human body to force behaviours deemed more ethical by the authors, based on ideological assumptions that are neither shared nor shareable among the general public.

The very fact that a scholarly journal accepted this thesis demands an urgent and clear cultural response. Ethics is not coercion disguised as the common good. It is not the manipulation of bodies, nor the justification of violence, even when those proposing it believe they mean well.

A sound, free, and human rights–based ethical framework cannot—and must not—accept the idea that evil can be premeditated for the sake of a supposed greater good.