Can a price be placed on human eggs?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

There’s something funny about the U.S. market for eggs. No, not the kind that spring from chickens and go into making pancakes, but those that come from humans and go into making babies. These eggs – tiny bundles of reproductive DNA – are produced by young women at the peak of their fertility. They are sold in the United States for anywhere between $5,000 and $50,000. And they exist in an Alice in Wonderland world of explicit denial, where prices are capped far below their open-market value and even the most expensive transactions are classified, universally, as “donations.”

What is surprising, though, and disconcerting, is that egg prices are also exceedingly variable, ranging easily up to $10,000 for the same kind of harvest, and occasionally reaching over $50,000. Even more surprising is that, in theory at least, these prices are capped. According to guidelines issued in 2000 by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the reproductive wing of the American Medical Association, any compensation over $5,000 requires “justification,” and compensation over $10,000 is “beyond what is appropriate.” Legally, these guidelines have no standing, since the ASRM is a non-governmental body. In practice, though, they set a floor for egg compensation, particularly in those parts of the country where the fertility trade is quieter and less active, such as Alaska, New Hampshire, and Wyoming.

Read full, original post: Putting a Price on Human Eggs Makes No Sense

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-PM-24
Viewpoint: The herbicide glyphosate isn’t perfect. Banning it would be far worse.
d-b
Blocked arteries, kidney stones, nausea, constipation, fatigue: Long list of health problems caused by too much vitamin D 
Screenshot-2026-04-27-at-12.22.38-PM
Running ‘wild’: Last year, RFK, Jr. was given a green light to ‘reform’ chemical policies. Glyphosate illustrates how Trump now has him on a tight leash, and MAHA is furious
bayer-supremecourt-lt
EPA concludes glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Missouri courts say Monsanto failed to warn it might be. SCOTUS weighs in.
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-22-2026-11_06_18-AM
Wellness influencer nonsense: No, nicotine does not boost cognition and productivity, but it can damage your health 
ChatGPT-Image-Feb-16-2026-01_57_31-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Science-as-Satan’ unites the MAHA—MAGA movements. Is a breakup in the works?
Screenshot-2026-04-27-at-1.40.55-PM
With federal funding for scientific research already reeling, Trump fires the entire apolitical National Science Board
Screenshot-2026-04-12-135256
Bixonimania: The fake disease scam that AI swallowed whole
Screenshot-2026-04-27-at-12.41.50-PM
How pediatricians are navigating America’s surge of health misinformation
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.