business news in context, analysis with attitude

The Associated Press has a story about how “by early next year, the first foods from plants or animals that had their DNA ‘edited’ are expected to begin selling. It’s a different technology than today’s controversial ‘genetically modified’ foods, more like faster breeding that promises to boost nutrition, spur crop growth, and make farm animals hardier and fruits and vegetables last longer.

According to the story, “The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has declared gene editing one of the breakthroughs needed to improve food production so the world can feed billions more people amid a changing climate. Yet governments are wrestling with how to regulate this powerful new tool. And after years of confusion and rancor, will shoppers accept gene-edited foods or view them as GMOs in disguise?”

The AP notes that scientists “hope gene editing eventually could save species from being wiped out by devastating diseases like citrus greening, a so far unstoppable infection that’s destroying Florida’s famed oranges.”
KC's View:
Seems to me that if ‘gene editing’ is different from ‘genetic modification,’ science and business will have to work together to explain how and why … and make a compelling case for why consumers do not need to be concerned.

I’m not arguing for or against the technology - just that one of the biggest mistakes science and business could make would be to underestimate the degree to which they need to educate consumers.