Beyond the Hype: CRISPR as a Strategic Opportunity for Agriculture

Since its adaptation for gene editing [1], the CRISPR system has captured the attention of international media and the public, quickly becoming a “promise” in the field of plant breeding. The first reports of CRISPR-based gene editing in plants emerged in 2013 [2], generating high expectations due to the possibility to introduce targeted modifications without incorporating foreign genes or causing random mutations. It also held the potential to accelerate genetic improvement by enabling direct gene modification, thereby avoiding lengthy cycles of crossing and selection. With such precision and efficiency, CRISPR was expected to reduce the costs associated with genetic modification, making biotechnological advancements more accessible to developing countries. The rapid expansion in the application of New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) in plants is evidenced by the extensive number of scientific publications documenting their use, predominantly involving CRISPR technology [3]. However, at present, only nine crops developed using NBTs have been approved for commercialization, of which only a few were obtained through CRISPR editing [GABA tomato and waxy corn in Japan (2021 and 2024, respectively); mustard greens in United States (2023); and non-browning banana in Philippines (2023)] (https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/). More recently, India has approved its first genome-edited, non-GMO, high-yielding, and climate-resilient rice varieties, which were created using the CRISPR system and are progressing toward broader cultivation evaluations and future commercialization (https://www.nature.com/articles/d44151-025-00078-2). This demonstrates that while some of the expectations have materialized through ongoing research and implementation, significant challenges remain in fully harnessing the enormous potential of this technology in plant breeding.

A major constraint to the application of CRISPR lies in public acceptance of gene-edited products. Genetic engineering remains a controversial subject globally and the use of CRISPR in plant breeding is no exception. Public concerns often focus on the potential long-term effects of edited crops on health and the environment. Generally, gene editing tools are perceived as an extension of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which have a controversial history due to their association with monoculture and the use of agrochemicals (even though the available scientific evidence indicates that approved genetically modified crops are safe for human consumption and the environment, if they are accompanied by appropriate, responsible, and sustainable management). Within this context, apprehensions arise regarding food safety and sovereignty, biodiversity impacts and the control that large corporations might exert over seed production, concerns frequently amplified by environmental groups. Moreover, just as public opinion shapes policy and legislation, regulations likely convey an implicit message regarding the perceived safety of gene editing technologies. As well as public acceptance ranges from unfavorable opinions to pragmatic openness, laws governing gene-edited crops vary significantly across countries. Some treat any targeted genetic modification-even without foreign DNA-as GMO, requiring the same rigorous environmental and health risk assessments as transgenic crops. These stringent regulations can deter adoption by farmers, companies, and researchers due to the high cost and complexity of compliance. Conversely, other countries have adopted more flexible, differentiated approaches. For example, Argentina was among the first to establish a specific regulatory framework for NBTs [4].

According to this regulation, if a gene edit does not incorporate foreign DNA (for example, if it involves only a point mutation or deletion without adding genes from another organism), and the modified DNA could have occurred naturally or through conventional breeding, then it is not classified as nor subject to GMO regulations. This regulation includes Prior Consultation Instances (PCI) for developers and investors, which allow for consultation about the regulatory status of a product at the design stage. This enables the developer to obtain an official technical opinion on the regulatory status of their biotechnological organism, thereby reducing normative uncertainty for investors and improving the project’s presentation to public and private funders. Moreover, the early establishment of specific regulatory frameworks, along with the implementation of PCI, has contributed to a marked increase in the number of PCI submissions from domestic actors, including Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), start-ups, and public institutions [5]. This trend illustrates how a more flexible, “caseby- case” regulatory approach for gene-edited products has fostered an increase in the number of local players involved in product development, in contrast to the case of GMOs, where the high costs of compliance approval processes limited participation primarily to a small number of multinational companies. However, the absence of a harmonized global regulatory framework creates significant trade barriers, as a crop deemed non-GMO in one country may face restrictions in another, limiting market access and making its commercial development economically unfeasible for companies targeting global markets.

The implementation of CRISPR in plant breeding also faces economic hurdles. Developing a new crop variety involves a significant investment of financial resources and time, which is why, in the Argentinean public research sector, gene editing applications are often limited to gene function studies or early stages of crop breeding, due to funding constraints that hinder further development and field testing. Technology transfer to private companies may be a way to advance these innovations, but private developers must see a clear return on investment before adopting gene-edited crops. As a result, many companies prefer well-established technologies, such as directed mutagenesis, traditional breeding, or transgenic incorporation of specific traits with prior regulatory approval and commercialization history. Another factor contributing to public wariness of CRISPR technology was its portrayal in sensationalist media as an easy, do-it-yourself tool. However, the effective application of CRISPR in plants requires advanced infrastructure, such as plant transformation facilities and high-performance equipment for molecular characterization, making it accessible only to specialized laboratories. Moreover, technical information on CRISPR is often either overly simplified (e.g., referring to “molecular scissors”) or conveyed in an overly technical and complex manner due to the diversification of applications and the rapid evolution of the technology, which creates a barrier to a more accurate general understanding of its scope and safety.

The use of CRISPR in plant breeding also faces several technical bottlenecks [6,7], including the need for speciesspecific transformation and regeneration protocols, as well as the dependence of editing success rates on factors such as the plant’s reproductive cycle, genome complexity, and transformation efficiency. However, “nothing ventured, nothing gained.” The cost of uncertainty is the risk associated with the potential benefits that may arise from innovation, and CRISPR technology applied to plant breeding has undoubtedly proven to be a disruptive force capable of revolutionizing crop improvement [8,9]. It has transformed a slow and imprecise process into one that is faster, more efficient and more targeted. Regardless of the social, regulatory, economic and technical obstacles, CRISPR has demonstrated its potential as a game-changing technology for plant improvement. Looking ahead, broader adoption of CRISPR-based editing may be driven by the growing body of scientific evidence supporting its safety and benefits, along with mounting pressures from climate change and global food security challenges. CRISPR stands out not only as a scientific breakthrough but also as a strategic asset in the pursuit of technological progress and food system resilience. Ultimately, CRISPR should not be seen merely as a promise, but as a powerful opportunity to foster innovation, strengthen scientific leadership and enhance the resilience and sustainability of agriculture worldwide.

1. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, et al. (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337(6096): 816-821.
2. Bortesi L, Fischer R (2015) The CRISPR/Cas9 system for plant genome editing and beyond. Biotechnol Adv 33(1): 41-52.
3. Kalaitzandonakes N, Willig C, Zahringer K (2023) The economics and policy of genome editing in crop improvement. Plant Genome 16(2): e20248.
4. Whelan AI, Lema MA (2015) Regulatory framework for gene editing and other New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) in Argentina. GM Crops Food 6(4): 253-265.
5. Goberna MF, Lewi DM, Godoy P, Simeone F, Hopp HE (2024) Regulatory framework for CRISPR-edited crops in Argentina. Global Regulatory Outlook for Crisprized Plants pp. 213-230.
6. Cardi T, Murovec J, Bakhsh A, Boniecka J, Bruegmann T, et al. (2023) CRISPR/Cas-mediated plant genome editing: Outstanding challenges a decade after implementation. Trends Plant Sci 28(10): 1144-1165.
7. Han X, Deng Z, Liu H, Ji X (2025) Current advancement and future prospects in simplified transformation-based plant genome editing. Plants 14(6): 889.
8. Kafle S (2023) CRISPR/CAS9: A new paradigm for crop improvement revolutionizing agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11: 100484.
9. Tang Q, Wang X, Jin X, Peng J, Zhang H, et al. (2023) Crispr/Cas technology revolutionizes crop breeding. Plants 12(17): 3119.