Farmers, scientists worry anti-GMO activists could stymie CRISPR and other gene-edited crop research

ece f d c c a a af ff ab large
[N]ew precision breeding tools are creating such a buzz that some activists suggest techniques like CRISPR Cas9 – which involves “cutting and pasting” DNA within a plant at specific sequences – should be regulated the same as genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), which are created by the insertion of genetic material from a different species.

There is no science-based risk associated with either form of breeding, but GMOs have gotten a bad rap from several environmental groups which have pressured food companies to avoid them in food products.

Even the Non-GMO project, which attempts to verify and label food and beverage products that do not contain GMOs, wants to exclude gene-edited foods from consideration – even if they are not technically GMOs.

As a result, farmers and plant breeders are worried that much-needed research – aimed at solving some of the most pressing plant diseases – is at risk of being stymied in the commercial marketplace over unfounded fears about GMOs. Gene-editing could be one way around that barrier.

Some firms are already marketing gene-edited plants as non-GMO or working to do so in the near future. And because the production and regulatory costs associated with gene editing are so much lower, a lot of smaller technology companies are jumping into the action alongside much bigger seed companies.

Read full, original post: The promise and potential for new plant varieties

{{ 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-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
Screenshot-2026-04-12-135256
Bixonimania: The fake disease scam that AI swallowed whole

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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