Classic genetic modification has met the most resistance in the livestock sector, but soon, American consumers will be able to eat meat from the first gene-edited animals: pigs immune to the PRRS virus.

BBQ ribs, pulled pork, crispy bacon. In the near future, those visiting the U.S. will likely have the opportunity to taste classic American dishes in a genetically edited form. The Food and Drug Administration has, in fact, approved the first pigs whose genome has been edited using CRISPR to make them resistant to a serious viral disease: porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).

The development is intriguing even for vegetarians like me, as it allows for reflection on the use of gene editing in livestock and perhaps the chance to challenge some common misconceptions fueled by misinformation. In Italy, for example, the successful documentary Food for Profit has contributed to the spread of misleading ideas about advanced biotechnology in this sector. Critically examining industrial farming is, of course, valid and necessary, but portraying gene editing as the next tool of animal abuse is misguided.

Certainly, if we believe the only acceptable form of farming is extensive (which, however, cannot meet the global demand for meat, milk, and eggs), some of the research supported by CRISPR may appear controversial, as it seeks to alleviate problems within intensive systems without rejecting their underlying model.

This reasoning applies to hornless cattle, developed to reduce the risk of animals injuring each other in confined spaces, offering an alternative to painful surgical dehorning. A reformist rather than radical logic also underlies the idea of incubating only the eggs that will produce female chicks, thereby avoiding the mass slaughter of male chicks in poultry farming. A futuristic application with obvious bioethical benefits, yet one that receives little public attention.

And what about short-haired cattle, edited to promote the expansion of more efficient and profitable farming in tropical regions? These animals, known as “slick cattle,” appear to be nearing commercial approval, but they too may face criticism for reinforcing productivist logics.

Then there are fast-growing edited fish, already approved for niche consumption in Japan. According to producers, these fish offer both environmental and economic benefits. But—judging from the fierce opposition to AquaBounty’s earlier GMO salmon—they are unlikely to win over critics of intensive aquaculture.

This leaves us with animals genetically modified to resist serious diseases for which no highly effective vaccines exist. These projects must be assessed individually. But if they pass regulatory inspection, if the edited animals are shown to be healthy, and if the resulting products are indistinguishable from those of unmodified animals (as is the case with PRRS-resistant pigs), it becomes hard to justify blanket opposition. For a general assessment of the risks, however remote, associated with gene editing in animals, we refer to the recent report by the U.S. National Academies.

Let us return, then, to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. This disease, which first emerged in the U.S. in 1987, has since spread to swine farms worldwide. It can affect pigs of all ages, causing symptoms such as fever, lethargy, anorexia. Its name refers to the respiratory problems that are fatal to almost all suckling piglets and, in older animals, create susceptibility to secondary infections, often treated with heavy antibiotic use. The first “R” in PRRS, meanwhile, highlights the reproductive issues caused by the disease, including frequent miscarriages and perinatal deaths. Global economic losses from PRRS are estimated in the billions of dollars annually. But what interests me more is this question for our animal welfare advocates: can we agree that sparing pigs this suffering represents progress for animal health?

I ask because Food for Profit fails to address this aspect, instead basing its narrative on a fantastical scenario: pigs with four hams. The goal of this editorial choice? To mock Brussels lobbyists portrayed as more interested in profit than ethics. Unfortunately, this kind of storytelling dismisses the real potential of applications such as viral resistance.

We still don’t know how many countries will approve PRRS-resistant pigs or how consumers will respond. Before launching large-scale commercialization, the British parent company (Genus) and its U.S. subsidiary (PIC) say they are waiting for approval in key export markets (Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China). But it is these PRRS-resistant animals that we should be talking about, because experimental facilities already house hundreds of gene-edited animals, with thousands of their offspring. Healthy pigs with four normal legs, from which only two hams can be made, not four. Real animals, not narrative fabrications.