Innovation in agriculture is pervasive. However, in spite of the success stories of twentieth century plant breeding, the twenty-first century has ushered in a set of challenges that solutions from the past century are unlikely to address. However, sustained research and the amalgamation of a number of disciplines has resulted in new breeding techniques (NBTs), such as genome editing, which offer the promise of new opportunities to resolve some of the issues. Here we present the results of an expert survey on the added potential benefits of genome-edited crops compared to those developed through genetic modification (GM) and conventional breeding. Overall, survey results reveal a consensus among experts on the enhanced agronomic performance and product quality of genome-edited crops over alternatives. The majority of experts indicated that the regulations for health and safety, followed by export markets, consumers, and the media play a major role in determining where and how NBTs, including genome editing, will be developed and used in agriculture. Further research is needed to gauge expert opinion after the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling establishing that site-specific mutagenic breeding technologies are to be regulated in the same fashion as GM crops, regardless of whether foreign DNA is present in the final variety.

New breeding techniques in plant agriculture exploded upon the scene about two years ago, in 2014. While these innovative plant breeding techniques, soon to be led by CRISPR/Cas9, initially appear to hold tremendous promise for plant breeding, if not a revolution for the industry, the question of how the products of these technologies will be regulated is rapidly becoming a key aspect of the technology's future potential. Regulation of innovative technologies and products has always lagged that of the science, but in the past decade, regulatory systems in many jurisdictions have become gridlocked as they try to regulate genetically modified (GM) crops. This regulatory incapability to efficiently assess and approve innovative new agricultural products is particularly important for new plant breeding techniques as if these techniques are classified as genetically modified breeding techniques, then their acceptance and future will diminish considerably as they will be rejected by the European Union. Conversely, if the techniques are accepted as conventional plant breeding, then the future is blindingly bright. This article examines the international debate about the regulation of new plant breeding techniques and then assesses how the Canadian regulatory system has approached the regulation of these technologies through two more public product approvals, GM apples and GM potatoes, then discusses other crop variety approval and those in the regulatory pipeline.

Summary: Global food security is largely affected by factors such as environmental (e.g. drought, flooding), social (e.g. gender inequality), socio‐economic (e.g. overpopulation, poverty) and health (e.g. diseases). In response, extensive public and private investment in agricultural research has focused on increasing yields of staple food crops and developing new traits for crop improvement. New breeding techniques pioneered by genome editing have gained substantial traction within the last decade, revolutionizing the plant breeding field. Both industry and academia have been investing and working to optimize the potentials of gene editing and to bring derived crops to market. The spectrum of cutting‐edge genome editing tools along with their technical differences has led to a growing international regulatory, ethical and societal divide. This article is a summary of a multi‐year survey project exploring how experts view the risks of new breeding techniques, including genome editing and their related regulatory requirements. Surveyed experts opine that emerging biotechnologies offer great promise to address social and climate challenges, yet they admit that the market growth of genome‐edited crops will be limited by an ambiguous regulatory environment shaped by societal uncertainty.

Experts are often called on to inform decision makers with subjective estimates of uncertain events. Their judgment serves as the basis for policy-related decision-making. This paper analyzes survey results used to collect experts’ opinions of the likely cost to bring genome edited crops to market. We also examine the effect of expertise (scientific experts versus social scientists in plant biotechnology) and possible knowledge mis-calibration, both in terms of overconfidence (i.e., when subjective knowledge is inflated) and under-confidence (i.e., when subjective knowledge is deflated), on the estimation of cost involved in the development and commercial release of genome edited crops. We found that the expected costs of genome edited crops are case specific and depend on whether crops will likely be regulated as genetically modified or accepted as conventional varieties and not subject to any regulatory oversight by federal regulators. While cost evaluation of genome edited crops did not vary among scientific and social experts, it did vary among domains of knowledge. Hence, expert’s performance can be described as task-specific in the context of this study.

Genetically modified (GM) crops have been produced in the initial adopting countries for 20 years. Over this period of time, hundreds of articles and reports have been published by academic journals, government regulatory agencies, and national science organizations on the safety aspects of biotechnology and GM crops. In addition to this, there is a growing body of quantified peer reviewed literature on the economic and environmental benefits following the adoption of GM crops in both developed and developing countries. Some estimates place the economic benefits in the billions of dollars a year range. In spite of the documentation of these economic and environmental benefits, GM crops face a challenging future. Environmental nongovernmental organizations (eNGOs) are relentless in their campaigns of misinformation about the dangers and hazards of GM crops. While eNGOs are unable to quantify their claims and accusations, their political and policy influences continue, particularly in Europe and numerous developing nations. The result of this is regulatory delays for the approval of new GM crops and frequent international commodity trade failures, where shipments have been rejected due to the low‐level presence of a GM crop. Taken in combination, the regulatory and trade challenges facing GM crops are having a detrimental impact on improving food security. This article quantifies the benefits of GM crops, highlights the regulatory costs of delayed approval, and provides insights into the spillover effects from GM crop trade.