Amidst the debate whether genetically engineered crops are harmful or
beneficial especially to farmers in developing countries, some people are
joining in to decide if the new gene editing technology, CRISPR, is really
just "GMO 2.0", or an advanced and helpful tool in speeding up the plant
breeding process. In July, the European Union's Court of Justice decided
that crops made with CRISPR are to be classified as genetically engineered,
but in the US, the regulatory systems are considering distinctions between
genetic engineering and specific uses of genome editing.



Rebecca Mackelprang, a plant molecular biologist, argues that the
application of biotechnology in organic agriculture could be very
beneficial. Mackelprang demonstrated the difference between genetic
engineering, CRISPR, and mutation breeding, and posited that by taking
advantage of these, we can move beyond the already commercialized
genetically engineered traits that tackles herbicide tolerance or insect
resistance in corn, soybean or cotton, and accept the other engineered crops
with high potentials that exist but are less acknowledged because of the
"prohibitive expense of passing regulatory hurdles".

In the six years that the abilities of CRISPR were demonstrated on a variety
of agricultural crops, many academics and established corporations proceeded
to adopt the technology for their agricultural products. This led to the
advancement of genetic traits such as in addressing possible problems in
consumer health, decreasing food waste, and efficiency. However, the U.S.
National Organic Standards Board decided to exclude all genome-edited crops
from organic certification, yet some organic farmers who acknowledge the
opportunities gene editing can bring argue to have this decision
reconsidered.

[theconversation.com]
-a-tool-for-sustainable-agriculture-101585