The US has approved CRISPR pigs for food

Food labeling and consumer transparency

• Many expect CRISPR pork will not be labeled in the US, tying this to long‑standing resistance to mandatory food labels seen as “non‑tariff barriers.”
• One view: labels increase safety, transparency, and honesty; opposition comes from producers with “questionable” practices.
• Others note labels are also marketing tools, can be fraudulent or opaque (e.g., “organic,” health endorsements), and tend to advantage large firms able to bear compliance costs.
• Some argue perfect “what’s in it” labeling is impossible; in practice, consumers must decide which brands they trust.

GMO/CRISPR science vs public perception

• Pro‑GMO commenters stress there’s no demonstrated health harm from eating GMOs and see anti‑GMO attitudes as anti‑science, distinct from legitimate criticism of agribusiness practices (e.g., herbicide use).
• Critics emphasize uncertainty in complex biological systems and support a precautionary approach; they see CRISPR as “creepy,” rushed, and largely serving industrial efficiency and IP rather than consumers.
• There is concern that this approval will further erode European willingness to import US meat.

Animal welfare and factory farming

• Several fear CRISPR pigs mainly enable even denser, harsher factory farming while keeping animals just “healthy enough.”
• Others counter that the specific edit (PRRS virus resistance) reduces disease and suffering and is orthogonal to husbandry quality; if you care about welfare, regulate conditions directly.
• Some argue there is no ethical way to use mammals for food at all; others suggest better labeling and higher‑welfare standards show consumers will pay more where options are clear.

Safety, viral evolution, and long‑term effects

• Technical discussion notes the edited receptor has known biological functions; concerns include off‑target effects, unknown long‑term or multigenerational impacts, and limited sample sizes and lifespans in studies.
• The virus‑resistance claim is questioned: if one variant already bypasses the edit, selective pressure might make that strain dominant, potentially nullifying the benefit and damaging public trust in gene editing.

Regulation, oversight, and ethics

• US–EU differences are framed as “prove it’s safe” vs “you can’t prove it’s unsafe.”
• Some see US laws (including “ag‑gag” style rules) as protecting industrial producers and hiding conditions, reinforcing skepticism about CRISPR meat.
• A side debate links this to the ethics of human germline editing and consent, referencing the Chinese CRISPR‑baby case as a cautionary example.