The idea that a single gene-editing tool could improve crop yields, help treat genetic diseases and make animals more resilient to changing climates may once have sounded like a pipe dream. But the discovery and application of CRISPR-Cas9 sparked a scientific revolution—one significant enough to earn the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
For years, gene editing in food and agriculture was largely a conversation about what might someday be possible. Today, real-world applications are advancing through development, regulatory review and commercialization around the world.
“Gene editing in modern society is no longer theoretical. We are seeing applications in various stages of development, from apples to yams, and everything in between,” said Charlie Arnot, CEO of the Center for Food Integrity. “And with increased applications and news about the potential benefits, we see growing consumer acceptance.”
The conversation around gene editing is moving from “Could we?” to “We can. And what problems can we tackle next?”
The possibilities include fruit that stays fresh longer, helping reduce food waste; cattle that can better tolerate hot environments, improving animal welfare; pigs that can resist one of the most devastating swine diseases, reducing the need for antibiotics; and berries that are easier to grow and eat while still delivering nutrition with every bite.
Consider these examples together, and something important becomes clear: A single tool can help address major agricultural challenges while also delivering benefits consumers increasing value.
“When it comes to food that people bring home to their families, connecting on values is three to five times more important than sharing data,” said Arnot.
Dr. Chris Cummings, behavioral scientist and the Founding Director of Decision Analytica Consulting LLC in North Carolina, agrees.
“It’s not necessarily the science that stops acceptance. It’s how that science aligns with peoples’ values.”
In fact, consumer research conducted in 2026 by both Cummings and the Center for Food Integrity found that consumer acceptance of gene editing in the food supply is strong and growing.
“More than five years ago, I authored some of the first peer-reviewed academic studies that systematically examined the public’s willingness to eat or purposefully avoid gene-edited foods,” said Cummings. “At that time, gene editing was still largely unfamiliar to most Americans, and public understanding of the technology was heavily shaped by decades of highly visible GMO debates. This newest research reflects a notable shift. Consumers are increasingly evaluating products like the PRRS-resistant pig through practical questions about animal health, food affordability, sustainability, and consumer choice rather than reflexive opposition to the technology itself.”
Gene editing cannot solve every agricultural problem. But it gives the industry a powerful new tool, and we are beginning to see just how diverse its applications could be—and how those applications address issues for the full value chain, from producer to consumer.
“One of the reasons I am so optimistic about the PRRS-resistant pig is because the results and the applications align so well with consumer values”, said Arnot. “If we can reduce animal suffering and antibiotic use, those are outcomes that consumers care about.”
That is ultimately where gene editing will prove its value—not simply in what scientists can accomplish, but in what producers, animals and consumers stand to gain. The scientific revolution has happened. The next chapter is about putting it to work.
MI248
