Latest news with #PRRS
Canada Standard
11-07-2025
- Health
- Canada Standard
Gene-edited pigs may soon enter the Canadian market, but questions about their impact remain
The Canadian government is currently considering approving the entry of gene-edited pigs into the food system. Using CRISPR gene-editing technology, genetic changes can be created precisely and efficiently without introducing foreign genetic material. If approved, these pigs would be the first gene-edited food animals available for sale in Canadian markets. My research examines how including the public in decision-making around emerging applications of genomics can help mitigate potential harms. These pigs are resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), a horrible and sometimes fatal disease that affects pigs worldwide. PRRS has significant economic, food security and animal welfare implications. Read more: What is gene editing and how could it shape our future? The United States Food and Drug Administration recently greenlit the commercial production of gene-edited pigs. Will the Canadian government follow suit? In 2016, Canada approved the first transgenic animal for human consumption - an Atlantic salmon called AquAdvantage salmon that contains DNA from other species of fish. This approval came more than 25 years after the genetically modified fish was created by scientists at Memorial University in Newfoundland. The approval and commercialization of AquAdvantage salmon faced strong public opposition on both sides of the border, including protests, supermarket boycotts and court battles. In 2024, the company that produced AquAdvantage salmon announced that it was shutting down its operations. Read more: The science and politics of genetically engineered salmon: 5 questions answered In 2012, the Canadian government approved the manufacture of a transgenic pig known by its trade name, EnviroPig. Created by scientists at the University of Guelph, EnviroPigs released less phosphorus than conventionally bred pigs. EnviroPig did not make it to market; the same year, the University of Guelph ended the EnviroPig project. Funding for the project had been suspended, in part because of consumer concerns. Some researchers argue that government regulation of gene-edited animals should be less restrictive than for transgenic techniques. Gene editing introduces genetic changes that can occur with conventional animal breeding that is not subject to regulation. Gene-edited crops in Canada are treated the same as conventionally bred crops. Others insist that stringent government regulation is necessary for gene editing to identify potential problems and ensure that laws keep up with industry and scientific ambition. Regulation plays a vital role in minimizing risk, encouraging public involvement and building trust. Social science research has, for decades, demonstrated that resistance to biotechnology is not because of the public's lack of knowledge, as is often argued by biotechnology proponents. Public resistance to biotechnology is better understood as a rejection of potential harms imposed by governments and industry without public input and consent. At present, little opportunity exists for public engagement in Canadian assessments of gene-edited animals. Similar to the U.S., Canada does not have specific gene technology regulation. Rather, the federal government relies on pre-existing environmental and food safety legislation. Canadian regulatory agencies use a risk, novelty and product-based approach to assess animal biotechnology. From a regulatory standpoint, distinctions between technical processes - like transgenic modification versus gene editing - are less important than the safety of the final product. The Canadian government has recently updated its federal environmental and health regulations. This includes introducing mandatory public consultations for animals (vertebrates, specifically) created using biotechnology. Even with these changes, there's still room for improvement. Public engagement is limited to consultations conducted within a short time frame. Interested parties are invited to provide scientific information about potential risks of animal biotechnology to human health or the environment, but comments that address ethical, moral, cultural or political concerns are not taken into consideration. More broadly, regulatory and academic debates about the gene editing of animals are largely informed by scientists and industry proponents with considerably less input from the public, Indigenous communities and social sciences and humanities researchers. From a social standpoint, the process by which gene editing is assessed matters as much as the safety of the final product. Inclusive public engagement is essential to ensure that the production of gene-edited food animals aligns with societal needs and values. Reactions to gene technologies are based on underlying values and beliefs, and sustained opportunities for public reflection and deliberation are vital for responsible innovation. Important questions should be addressed: Who will reap the benefits of gene-editing techniques? Who will bear the costs and harms? What are the potential implications, including hard-to-anticipate social and political changes? How should decision-making proceed to ensure that Canadians have sufficient opportunities for input? Currently, for the gene-edited pigs, members of the public can submit comments to the government until July 20, 2025. Public reactions to previous biotech food animals in Canada - including AquAdvantage salmon and the EnviroPig - show that lack of inclusive engagement can contribute to the rejection of animal biotechnology.
Canada News.Net
10-07-2025
- Health
- Canada News.Net
Gene-edited pigs may soon enter the Canadian market, but questions about their impact remain
The Canadian government is currently considering approving the entry of gene-edited pigs into the food system. Using CRISPR gene-editing technology, genetic changes can be created precisely and efficiently without introducing foreign genetic material. If approved, these pigs would be the first gene-edited food animals available for sale in Canadian markets. My research examines how including the public in decision-making around emerging applications of genomics can help mitigate potential harms. These pigs are resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), a horrible and sometimes fatal disease that affects pigs worldwide. PRRS has significant economic, food security and animal welfare implications. Read more: What is gene editing and how could it shape our future? The United States Food and Drug Administration recently greenlit the commercial production of gene-edited pigs. Will the Canadian government follow suit? In 2016, Canada approved the first transgenic animal for human consumption - an Atlantic salmon called AquAdvantage salmon that contains DNA from other species of fish. This approval came more than 25 years after the genetically modified fish was created by scientists at Memorial University in Newfoundland. The approval and commercialization of AquAdvantage salmon faced strong public opposition on both sides of the border, including protests, supermarket boycotts and court battles. In 2024, the company that produced AquAdvantage salmon announced that it was shutting down its operations. Read more: The science and politics of genetically engineered salmon: 5 questions answered In 2012, the Canadian government approved the manufacture of a transgenic pig known by its trade name, EnviroPig. Created by scientists at the University of Guelph, EnviroPigs released less phosphorus than conventionally bred pigs. EnviroPig did not make it to market; the same year, the University of Guelph ended the EnviroPig project. Funding for the project had been suspended, in part because of consumer concerns. Some researchers argue that government regulation of gene-edited animals should be less restrictive than for transgenic techniques. Gene editing introduces genetic changes that can occur with conventional animal breeding that is not subject to regulation. Gene-edited crops in Canada are treated the same as conventionally bred crops. Others insist that stringent government regulation is necessary for gene editing to identify potential problems and ensure that laws keep up with industry and scientific ambition. Regulation plays a vital role in minimizing risk, encouraging public involvement and building trust. Social science research has, for decades, demonstrated that resistance to biotechnology is not because of the public's lack of knowledge, as is often argued by biotechnology proponents. Public resistance to biotechnology is better understood as a rejection of potential harms imposed by governments and industry without public input and consent. At present, little opportunity exists for public engagement in Canadian assessments of gene-edited animals. Similar to the U.S., Canada does not have specific gene technology regulation. Rather, the federal government relies on pre-existing environmental and food safety legislation. Canadian regulatory agencies use a risk, novelty and product-based approach to assess animal biotechnology. From a regulatory standpoint, distinctions between technical processes - like transgenic modification versus gene editing - are less important than the safety of the final product. The Canadian government has recently updated its federal environmental and health regulations. This includes introducing mandatory public consultations for animals (vertebrates, specifically) created using biotechnology. Even with these changes, there's still room for improvement. Public engagement is limited to consultations conducted within a short time frame. Interested parties are invited to provide scientific information about potential risks of animal biotechnology to human health or the environment, but comments that address ethical, moral, cultural or political concerns are not taken into consideration. More broadly, regulatory and academic debates about the gene editing of animals are largely informed by scientists and industry proponents with considerably less input from the public, Indigenous communities and social sciences and humanities researchers. From a social standpoint, the process by which gene editing is assessed matters as much as the safety of the final product. Inclusive public engagement is essential to ensure that the production of gene-edited food animals aligns with societal needs and values. Reactions to gene technologies are based on underlying values and beliefs, and sustained opportunities for public reflection and deliberation are vital for responsible innovation. Important questions should be addressed: Who will reap the benefits of gene-editing techniques? Who will bear the costs and harms? What are the potential implications, including hard-to-anticipate social and political changes? How should decision-making proceed to ensure that Canadians have sufficient opportunities for input? Currently, for the gene-edited pigs, members of the public can submit comments to the government until July 20, 2025. Public reactions to previous biotech food animals in Canada - including AquAdvantage salmon and the EnviroPig - show that lack of inclusive engagement can contribute to the rejection of animal biotechnology.
Toronto Sun
03-07-2025
- Health
- Toronto Sun
CHARLEBOIS: The gene-edited bacon you never asked for
Gene-edited meat is coming to Canada, but without transparency or labeling, consumers won't know it—threatening the trust that holds our food system together. Oscar Mayer bacon packages are on display in a refrigerated case in a King Soopers grocery store Monday, Oct. 7, 2024, in southeast Denver. Photo by David Zalubowski / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS In April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the commercial distribution of pigs genetically edited with CRISPR technology to resist porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), a costly and widespread disease in pork production. These pigs are expected to enter the American market in 2026. Yet Canadian consumers could start seeing gene-edited pork products in stores — unlabelled and unannounced — as early as next year. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account CRISPR is a powerful gene-editing tool that allows scientists to alter DNA with high precision. In agriculture, the technology holds enormous potential. In the case of pigs, it was used to disable a gene that makes animals susceptible to PRRS, eliminating the need for antibiotics or medical interventions. The goal is simple: increase productivity, reduce losses, and stabilize the food supply chain. But whether this aligns with consumer expectations remains a separate — and unresolved — question. Canada imported more than US $850 million worth of U.S. pork last year, according to the National Pork Producers Council. So regardless of Canadian regulatory decisions, gene-edited meat is coming. And yet, no label will tell you whether your pork chop or bacon came from a genetically altered animal. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. That lack of transparency is precisely what Quebec-based duBreton, North America's leading organic pork producer, is warning against. The company argues that gene editing is incompatible with organic and humane production standards — and more importantly, with informed consumer choice. Whether or not gene-edited meat poses a food safety risk isn't the central issue. The issue is whether consumers have the right to know how their food was produced. It's not the first time Canada has faced this dilemma. Genetically modified (GM) salmon was approved and introduced in Canadian markets several years ago — without mandatory labelling. Major retailers ultimately rejected the product due to consumer backlash, and the company behind it, AquaBounty, eventually relocated its operations outside Canada. That case serves as a cautionary tale: even if a technology is deemed safe, consumer perception can dictate its commercial fate. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In contrast, GM technology has long been accepted in grain production. Genetically modified ingredients—largely from corn, canola, and soy — are now commonplace in processed foods. These technologies have contributed to yield stability and lower input costs for farmers. But even in grains, labelling remains inconsistent, and the average consumer still doesn't know which products contain modified ingredients. What's different in livestock is the emotional and ethical connection people have with animals and meat. A pork chop isn't just a commodity — it represents values tied to animal welfare, sustainability, and trust in the food system. That's why gene editing in livestock raises more scrutiny than it has in crop science. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. To be clear, gene editing isn't inherently a bad thing. It could play a vital role in global food security, particularly as we face mounting pressures from climate change, animal disease, and rising production costs. But the rollout matters. And the food industry has historically failed to bring the public along when introducing breakthrough technologies. The failure isn't scientific — it's strategic. Rather than building a transparent narrative around innovation, the industry has often opted for silence, leaving the public to fill in the blanks. That vacuum has been seized by special interest groups, some of which traffic in fear and misinformation. The 'Frankenfood' rhetoric may have been overblown, but it did shine a light on an ethical principle we should not ignore: consumers deserve to know. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Labelling gene-edited products is not about fear — it's about trust. Informed choice is the cornerstone of any credible food policy. Consumers don't need to be protected from innovation, but they do need to be respected. The question is not whether gene-edited meat should exist; it's whether its presence should be hidden. On that front, duBreton is right to raise the alarm. If gene editing truly delivers benefits to farmers, processors, and consumers, then let's have that conversation openly — with proper labeling, sound science, and the transparency Canadians expect from a modern food system. — Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is the Director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast Sports Money News MLB Editorial Cartoons News
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
FDA Approves Gene-Hacked CRISPR Pigs for Human Consumption
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways The US Food and Drug Administration has approved a type of CRISPR gene-edited pig for human consumption. As MIT Technology Review reports, only an extremely limited list of gene-modified animals are cleared by regulators to be eaten in the United States, including a transgenic salmon that has an extra gene to grow faster, and heat-tolerant beef cattle. And now a type of illness-resistant pig could soon join their ranks. British company Genus used the popular gene-editing technique CRISPR to make pigs immune to a virus that causes an illness called porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS). It's the same technology that's been used to gene-hack human babies — experiments that have proven far more controversial — and develop medicine in the form of gene therapies. The PRRS virus can easily spread in factory farms in the US and cause the inability to conceive, increase the number of stillborn pigs, and trigger respiratory complications, including pneumonia. It's been called the "most economically important disease" affecting pig producers, since it can have a devastating effect on their bottom lines. According to MIT Tech, it causes losses of more than $300 million a year in the US alone. Genus' gene-editing efforts have proven highly successful so far, with the pigs appearing immune to 99 percent of known versions of the virus. Using CRISPR, the company knocked out a receptor that allowed the PRRS virus to enter cells, effectively barring it from infecting its host. Beyond the respiratory illness, scientists are using gene-editing to make pigs less vulnerable or even immune to other infections, including swine fever. But before we can eat a pork chop from a gene-edited pig, Genus says that it will have to lock down regulatory approval in Mexico, Canada, Japan, and China as well, the United States' biggest export markets for pork, as MIT Tech reports. The company is hoping gene-edited pork could land in the US market as soon as next year. But whether you'll actually know if you're eating meat from a pig that had a virus receptor turned off using a cutting-edge DNA modification technique is unclear. "We aren't aware of any labelling requirement," Genus subsidiary Pig Improvement Company CEO Matt Culbertson told MIT Tech. More on CRISPR: Scientist Who Gene-Hacked Human Babies Says Ethics Are "Holding Back" Scientific Progress
Telegraph
06-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Founded in an Oxfordshire pub, this business leads the world in pig polishing
Questor is The Telegraph's stock-picking column, helping you decode the markets and offering insights on where to invest. Confusion still reigns as Donald Trump strikes a trade deal with Ukraine and offers further exemptions to his proposed package of reciprocal tariffs, but continues to posit income tax cuts funded by revenues generated from these very duties. The first two are helping to drive double-digit percentage rallies from early April's lows in headline US equity indices such as the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq and healthy gains elsewhere, including the UK. Whether the bottom is in, or whether this is a classic short-covering, bear-market rally is hard to gauge because nobody knows what is coming next. Those investors who seek a haven from the volatility can perhaps seek out defensive sectors and companies, where demand is relatively insulated from the vagaries of the economic cycle, such as utilities. Portfolio holdings such as National Grid and SSE fit the bill here. Another approach is to look for firms where the business model has a distinct rhythm of its own, which brings us to animal genetics specialist Genus. The business has two main units – pig improvement company (PIC) and American breeders service (ABS) – which serve the porcine and bovine markets respectively, across the globe. Genus's analysis and expertise in genomics helps farmers to raise animals which grow faster and are more resistant to disease, to help meet the growing demand for protein while reducing resource needs and environmental impact. In the case of ABS, Genus can help dairy farmers increase the chance of cows giving birth to female calves suitable for dairy production or young more suited to beef production. At PIC, revenues are recognised either upfront, in the form of full fair value for the animal, or via royalties as piglets are weaned, while ABS sells straws of semen or embryos from elite genetic lines, as well as related technical services. PIC is the global leader in its field while ABS ranks second in the bovine arena. Besides this strong competitive position, there are three potential reasons for looking more closely at the Basingstoke-headquartered company. First, the share price chart goes from the top-left-hand corner of the screen to the bottom right for most of the past five years, something that always catches this column's eye. The shares are down by 70pc from their 2021 highs, largely thanks to the conclusion of pig herd restocking in China in the wake of a swine fever outbreak and a subsequent collapse in pork prices there. Second, the company's first-half results in January delivered what analysts described as the first positive upside surprise to earnings estimates for three years, suggesting the company had finally turned a corner. Finally, America's key regulator in this area, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is giving its approval to Genus's porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) pig resistant programme (PRP). Brazil had already given PRP and gene-edited pigs the nod, and other nations, such as Mexico, Canada and Japan, may now be inclined to do the same. Given the devastating effect the PRRS virus can have upon herds – and farmers' incomes owing to the antibiotics bills and premature death rates – demand could be strong, to the great benefit of Genus' sales and profits. FDA approval opens the way to commercialisation of PRP and analysts' forecasts are yet to really factor in the potential upside. As ever, there are risks. The US represents nearly 40pc of Genus's total sales, primarily from the PIC. As a result, Trump, trade and tariffs again hover into view. The good news is that Genus imports little and it has five sites in America, including a research and development team in Madison, Wisconsin. The danger comes from Genus exports from America, should other nations impose retaliatory tariffs, especially Mexico and Canada, so investors must keep a watching brief here. In addition, net debt has climbed in the past few years, thanks in part to new leases on farms in China, while the valuation does not look that tempting at first glance. In the case of the former, at least interest cover is still good, once a number of exceptional items are taken out of fiscal 2024's messy set of results. With regard to the latter, earnings are still relatively depressed, so that inflates the price-to-earnings multiple, and the rating could start to drop quickly if PRP delivers on its potential and profits growth gathers fresh momentum. Europe's outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is another near-term complication, although a severe episode could eventually force farmers to restock in the manner of China at the turn of this decade, a process which gave Genus's profits and cash flows a lift. Questor says: Buy Ticker: GNS
