| Our GM crops are >90% engineered with what are called "first-generation" traits which offer resistance to herbicides, pests, or environmental conditions. First-gen traits are producer-centric, and the reason they make up most of our GM arsenal is because the same companies (Monsanto/Bayer for example) that provide the seed also provide the chemical that works in conjunction with the GM trait. In the past few years, public trust in GM crops has diminished due to false information and fear of the unknown. According to published work, only ~5% of consumers feel like they have a good understanding of GMO. The problem is that genetic engineering is not limited to "first-generation" traits. As a matter of fact, most of the unrealized benefit of GM crops is hidden in second and third generation traits. These are traits which increase nutritional value or improve shelf-life, etc (Consumer-centric traits). Before you bash GM by bringing up Monsanto, super-weeds, or whatever, just think about the second and third generation GM traits which could solve major issues in the world (nutrient deficiencies, carbon sequestration, supply chain resiliency). Plant molecular biologist with a background in genome engineering of high-value crops. AMA Edit: I want to add a snippet regarding the uncertainties of "playing god". First of all, CRISPR is gene editing which is much different than foreign gene insertion via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. But even agro transformation has been occuring in nature without human intervention. These bacterium have the capacity to insert foreign genes into plant genomes and have been doing so on their own for quite some time. There are plenty of known gene-transfer events which happened without human pressure. Plant genomes across the world are littered with agro transfer genes. The only difference is now we use this mechanism to deliberately insert genes of interest for functional purposes. |