There was a bit of online excitement over the possibility that gene-edited pork would be entering the Canadian market soon. Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada have a public consultation focused on the risk assessment process regarding the entry of gene-edited pigs into Canada’s food system. Before giving a link to the relevant government website, I have some information.
Factual
The best outline I could find was in Hailey Bennett’s July 10, 2025 article “US meat could soon be gene-edited. Here’s what that means” for British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) Science Focus, Note 1: Bennett seems unaware that gene-edited pork may reach the Canadian market first; Note 2: Links have been removed,
From hot dogs to crispy bacon, US food staples could be made of gene-edited meat as early as 2026. Yes, really: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the farming of a specific kind of genetically enhanced pig. And regulators around the world may not be far behind.
So, should we be worried? Will this pork truly be safe to eat? And just how ethical is it to create these pigs?
The first thing you should know: not every gene-edited animal will be directly spawned from a lab. Rather, such livestock are merely bred from animals whose DNA was edited early on – often at the single-cell or fertilised egg stage [also known as germline editing] – to give them beneficial traits.
And no, this gene editing isn’t about making pork taste better –it’s about protecting pigs from disease.
For instance, British company Genus has now farmed pigs with a genetic tweak that makes them resistant to PRRS (Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome), a virus that attacks pigs’ immune cells. PRRS is a major threat: it can kill piglets, trigger miscarriages in pregnant sows, and weaken pigs’ immune systems, leaving them vulnerable to other infections.
These genetically enhanced pigs are even less of a novelty when you consider there is no effective vaccine for PRRS.
…
How heavily are these pigs being altered – and at what cost to their welfare? They’re fair questions. But in reality, the change is surprisingly minimal.
To stop the PRRS virus in its tracks, scientists snipped out a small section of pig DNA – part of the CD163 protein, which the virus uses to enter pig cells.
Pigs with the edited gene are resistant to almost all known strains of PRRS but are otherwise, Genus claims, “the same as conventional pigs”. And despite initial concerns that the virus could evolve to recognise and avoid the edited protein, that hasn’t happened so far.
According to Dr Christine Tait-Burkard, a Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute, who worked with Genus to develop the original gene-edited pigs, the natural CD163 protein they edited is “like nine beads on a string.” The edit removes only bead number five.
…
As Tait-Burkard explains, the edit is one that could also be naturally present in some pigs. “The chances are that there’s a pig somewhere in the world that’s resistant to this virus,” she says. “But we just don’t have the time to naturally breed this in. That’s where we have to start using biotechnology to integrate it into the breeding herd.”
…
In the 1990s and 2000s, genetically modified (GM) crops generated headlines and consumer concern about ‘Frankenfoods’. Ultimately, though, many GM crops were approved and the majority of scientists consider them safe to eat. These modified crops often carry foreign DNA – ‘Bt’ corn, for example, contains a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, enabling it to make a protein that kills insect pests.
The current generation of CRISPR-edited food products, by contrast, only contain changes that could naturally occur within the species. Scientists aren’t inventing entirely new kinds of pigs.
…
Bennett’s July 10, 2025 article does a good job of covering the topic but I advise supplementing it with other pieces.
Canada and the gene-edited pig
Sylvain Charlebois’ July 3, 2025 article “Transparency is paramount as gene-edited pork approaches market launch” for Canadian Grocer takes what can seem like abstract questions about gene-edited pigs and applies them to real life issues, Note: I have two “[sic?]’s” as I have been unable to confirm when gene-edited pork is likely to enter the Canadian market. At a guess, Charlebois is saying that Canadian consumers are likely to get the products later in 2025,
In April [2025], 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 [sic?]. Yet, Canadian consumers could start seeing gene-edited pork products in stores—unlabeled and unannounced—as early as next year [sic?].
…
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.
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.
…
… GM [genetic modification] 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, labeling 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.
To be clear, gene editing isn’t inherently a bad thing. …
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.
Labeling 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.
…
Public engagement/consultation
Gwendolyn Blue’s (professor, University of Calgary) July 10, 2025 essay for The Conversation suggested more and better public consultation should be part of the process, Note: Links have been removed,
The Canadian government is currently considering approving the entry of gene-edited pigs into the food system.
…
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.
The United States Food and Drug Administration [FDA] recently greenlit the commercial production of gene-edited pigs. Will the Canadian government follow suit?
AquAdvantage and EnviroPig
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 [emphases mine].
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.
Government regulation
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 [emphasis mine], 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 [emphasis mine].
Ethical, moral, cultural and political concerns
…
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.
…
… 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.
Consulting the public
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.
…
Measured optimism and a lot of enthusiasm (two articles)
Geralyn Wichers’s April 3, 2025 article for The Western Producer provided more details and measured optimism,
Canadian consumers are largely fine with pork from gene-edited pigs — at least once the science and benefits are explained to them.
That’s according to new research from genetic development company PIC (Pig Improvement Company), which is using gene editing technology to develop a pig resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).
A survey found that, after consumers read a description of gene editing in food and the PRRS-resistant pig, 49 per cent indicated positive or very positive sentiments, 38 per cent were neutral while 14 per cent were negative or very negative.
“Even though we’ve seen a lot of investments in things like vaccines and improved biosecurity, the problem is getting worse, not better,” said Banks Baker, PIC’s global director of product sustainability.
North America’s pork producers have been dealing with PRRS since the late 1980s. The viral disease causes respiratory issues in all ages of pigs. In breeding animals, though, it can derail reproductive performance.
…
A 2024 study by University of Guelph researcher Lynn Marchand estimated the annual cost of PRRS to a benchmark Manitoban 1,200-sow farrow-to-finish farm could be $588,709 to $631,602 [Manitoba is a province in Canada].
In January 2024, Ontario saw more severe cases of PRRS than it had in two years, veterinarian Dr. Ryan Tenbergen recently told attendees at the South Western Ontario Pork Conference. New strains of the disease, infecting more easily and severely, were also popping up in the United States.
The industry argues that genetically modified organisms have garnered a reputation for being unsafe and unhealthy, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Further, they argue, gene editing is different.
Genetic modification typically refers to adding genetic information from an outside source, whereas gene editing generally involves making small changes to the organism’s existing genome.
“GMO has had a long shadow,” said Marisa Pooley, PIC’s director of communications.
“We have used it as a case study to make sure that we’re putting the consumer at the centre of this.”
Consumers identified reducing animal illness and antibiotic use reduction as factors that would motivate them to purchase gene-edited pork.
They seemed to like the idea that gene editing could help farmers raise healthier animals more sustainably and to grow crops better able to withstand climate change. The idea that gene editing can be used to cure human diseases such as sickle cell anemia and cancer also improved feelings.
…
John Greig’s May 29, 20s5 article had details not in the other articles and presented a more impatient attitude,
The approval in the United States for food use of pigs gene edited to resist Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, or PRRS, will be a good test for Canada’s year-old approval process for gene editing.
…
I’ve talked to farmers who have dealt with PRRS outbreaks, and many herds in Canada have battled it over the past 35 years. The level of abortion and respiratory stress the disease causes is hard to watch for the people who care for the pigs every day.
The Canadian industry is now skilled at managing and eliminating the disease once it’s in a production system, but it takes one biosecurity break before it is back again.
A gene-edited solution to reducing PRRS would be a tremendous win for animal welfare, the mental health of farm workers, and farm business productivity and profitability [emphasis mine].
I’m interested to see how quickly the gene-edited pigs are approved for food use in Canada [emphasis mine]. It will be an interesting test case, as genetic modification of livestock is something the public has not accepted, despite the potential improvements in animal welfare and food safety.
Canada created a process that follows much of the rest of the world in approving gene editing through conventional approval processes when the expression of the gene is not novel. Gene editing works by turning on and off already-existing genes within an organism.
…
There’s momentum in Canada to catch up to the rest of the world in speed of approval of new agriculture technologies [emphasis mine], as government and industry push to improve the country’s lagging productivity.
The successful discovery of the gene edit is a win for a swine genetics sector that has undergone significant consolidation in the past decade to the point where there are only a handful of swine genetics companies.
The consolidation was driven by the rise of big data analytics and the need to invest in technologies like gene editing.
The PRRS resistance gene editing process was developed by GenusPIC, itself a merger of two large breeding companies, Genus and Pig Improvement Corporation (PIC). Unfortunately, unlike the dairy sector where Semex, a Canadian company, is one of the major players in genetics, there are no more Canadian swine genetics companies of any scale. Alliance Genetics was acquired by Danbred in 2022 and Genesus, the last independent Canadian swine genetics company has been through a receivership process and is now under new ownership.
Regarding approval for new agricultural technologies, I wish Greig had specified or given examples. The gene-edited pork that was the topic of his article raises the question: how could Canada be trailing the rest of the world where gene-edited pork is concerned since no other country (to my knowledge) has approved it for the consumer market? Assuming it’s approved.
The public consultation link (now closed)
For the curious, here’s what the Consultations on certain living organisms new to Canada webpage looked like,
…
Open consultations
Share your thoughts: Participate in the risk assessment process for four lines of Gene Edited Pigs [emphasis mine]
NSN Numbers: 22051, 22196-22198
Substance designation of the organisms:
- A gene edited Sus scrofa domesticus, Landrace descended from the L02 line, lacking a binding site for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV)
- A gene edited Sus scrofa domesticus, Large White descended from the L03 line, lacking a binding site for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV)
- A gene edited Sus scrofa domesticus, mix breed of Pietrain, Large White, Hampshire and Durocs descended from the L65 line, lacking a binding site for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV)
- A gene edited Sus scrofa domesticus, Duroc descended from the L800 line, lacking a binding site for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV)
Subject to consultation requirements under section 108.1 of CEPA: Yes, the organism is a vertebrate.
Activity: The notified organisms are four genetically edited domestic breeds of pigs (scientific name, Sus scrofa domesticus) which include:
- Landrace
- Large White
- Mix of Pietrain, Large White, Hampshire and Duroc
- Duroc
They are notified for use in breeding with commercially raised pigs used for pork production.
Genetic modifications: All four lines of pigs have had their genomes edited to remove a binding site for the virus that causes porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome PRRS. No new genetic material has been introduced to the notified organisms.
The gene editing is intended to remove the binding site for PRRS. Without this binding site, the virus is unable to bind and infect the host organism. PRRS is a highly contagious viral infection that is considered to be one of the most significant diseases in commercially raised pigs around the world. Currently, there is no effective treatment program for acute PRRS. The removal of the binding site for the PRRS virus from the notified organisms makes these pigs resistant to infection by the virus.
Exposure: According to the notifier, the pigs will be used for conventional breeding in commercial pig production systems in the same manner as non-edited pigs, to generate PRRS virus-resistant pig offspring for food and feed product use. The usage includes the import of animals derived from the edited pigs into production facilities in Canada. The notifier plans to maintain the animals under confinement and have described the biosafety and biosecurity procedures to be used at these facilities. There are no plans for any introduction into the environment outside production facilities
Waiver of information requirement: No waiver was requested.
Privacy Act Notice Statement
The personal information is collected under the authority of section 5 of the Department of the Environment Act and subsection 7(1) of the Financial Administration Act.
The New Substances Program, jointly administered by ECCC and Health Canada, is undertaking public consultation that could inform the risk assessment process for the four lines gene edited pigs. The information is collected, used and disclosed for the purpose of evaluating the potential risks posed by the gene edited organisms to the environment and human health. Information collected by ECCC will be retained by the department and shared with Health Canada for the purposes of the evaluation. Your participation and decision to provide any information is voluntary.
The personal information created, held or collected by Environment and Climate Change Canada is protected under the Privacy Act. Information from this consultation will be used, disclosed and retained in accordance with the conditions listed in the Personal Information Bank Outreach Activities PSU 938.
Any questions or comments regarding this privacy notice may be directed to ECCC’s Access to Information and Privacy Division at ECATIP-ECAIPRP@ec.gc.ca. If you are not satisfied that your privacy has been adequately respected, you have the right to file a complaint. You may contact the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada by calling their information center at 1-800-282-1376 or by visiting their contact page.
Request for Confidentiality under CEPA
Please provide information in English or French. Your information may be summarized and published in part or in full. Pursuant to section 313 of CEPA, any person who provides information in response to New Substance Notification 22051, 22196, 22197, and 22198 may submit, with the information, a request that it be treated as confidential. A request for confidentiality must indicate which specific information or data should be treated as confidential, and it must be submitted with reasons taking into account the criteria referred to in subsection 313(2) of CEPA.
Include your name, affiliation, telephone number, e-mail and mailing address and use the following format in the title of your submission: Public Participation: [NSN number(s)] – [Substance Designation].
Join in: how to participate
All interested parties are invited to provide comments, including scientific information and test data related to potential risks to the environment or human health from the four lines of gene edited pigs. This information will be considered as part of the department’s assessment of the organism’s potential risks to the environment or human health, which is ongoing. A summary of the public comments received as well as the New Substances Program’s responses will be published once the evaluation has been completed.
By mail
Send us a letter with your comments and input to the address in the contact information below.
By email
Send an email to substances@ec.gc.ca with your comments and input.
Who is the focus of this consultation
We would like to hear from:
- Indigenous peoples
- provincial, territorial and local governments
- industry stakeholders and association members
- non-governmental organizations
- general public
Key questions for discussion
All people in Canada are invited to provide comments, including scientific information and test data that could inform the risk assessment process. Information that may inform the risk assessment process could include:
- environmental fate information
- ecological effects information
- human health effects information or
- exposure information (including sources and routes of exposure)
Related information
Contact us
Science and Technology Branch
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Place Vincent Massey, 351 St. Joseph Blvd
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3
Telephone: 1-800-567-1999 (Toll Free in Canada) or 1-819-938-3232 (Outside of Canada)
E-mail: substances@ec.gc.ca…
Odds and sods
The Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC) ran an online panel “Navigating Geopolitical Shifts: Canada’s Innovation Strategy for Agriculture and Agrifood Sector” on May 21, 2025, which may or may not have included discussion of gene-editing. They have posted the video of the May 21, 2025 session (1.5 hours) online (or, should you be interested in some other session, you can check here)..
The salmon mentioned in Blue’s essay was featured in a May 20, 2016 posting here when consumption of the product was approved. I’ve also got this November 28, 2018 posting “Agriculture and gene editing … shades of the AquAdvantage salmon.”