This article explores the new developments and challenges of agricultural Gene Editing (GED) regulation in primarily nine countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Region: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru. As Gene Editing technology develops, Latin America and the Caribbean regulatory regimes struggle to keep pace. Developers and regulators face challenges such as consumer perceptions, intellectual property, R&D funding (private and public), training, environmental and social impact, and access to domestic and international markets. Some Latin America and the Caribbean countries (e.g., Argentina) interpret existing legislation to promulgate regulations for biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), while others (e.g., Brazil and Honduras) have specific legislation for Genetically Modified Organisms. In both those cases, often a case-by-case approach is chosen to determine whether a Gene Editing organism is subject to Genetically Modified Organisms regulations or not. Other countries such as Peru have opted to ban the technology due to its perceived resemblance to transgenic Genetically Modified Organisms. After presenting the regulatory landscape for agricultural Gene Editing in Latin America and the Caribbean, this article addresses some of the differences and similarities across the region. Some countries have had more foresight and have dedicated resources to increase capacity and develop regulations (e.g., Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico before 2018) while others struggle with bureaucratic limitations and partisanship of policymaking (e.g., Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico after 2018). We propose that the differences and similarities between these regulatory regimes have emerged in part as a result of policy entrepreneurs (influential individuals actively involved in policy making) taking advantage of policy windows (opportunities for shaping policy and regulation). The third and remaining sections of this study discuss our main findings. Based on 41 semi structured interviews with regulators, scientists, product developers, NGOs and activists, we arrived at three main findings. First, there seems to be a consensus among most regulators interviewed that having harmonized regimes is a positive step to facilitate product development and deployment, leading to commercialization. Second, reducing bureaucracy (e.g., paper work) and increasing flexibility in regulation go hand in hand to expedite the acquisition of key lab materials required by developers in countries with less robust regimes such as Peru and Bolivia. Finally, developing public and private partnerships, fostering transparency, and increasing the involvement of marginalized groups may increase the legitimacy of Gene Editing regulation.

Since the eighteenth century, animal breeding has significantly evolved, culminating in the use of gene editing (GE) technologies like CRISPR-Cas9. These technologies offer unprecedented capabilities to modify animal genomes, potentially revolutionising breeding practices by achieving desired traits much faster compared to traditional selective breeding (SB). Because breeding programmes focussed on productivity traits have often compromised animal welfare, this article provides an analysis of the ethical issues underpinning the use of GE in animal breeding, and the current laws regulating such practices. In doing so, this article critically examines the European Union (EU)’s regulatory framework for SB and GE in farm animals, highlighting significant gaps and inconsistencies. Specifically, the use of GE animals is currently regulated under the EU’s GMO legislation, while SB is more loosely regulated, posing substantial risks to animal welfare. The authors advocate for a regulatory framework that prioritises animal welfare goals and proposes reforms to enhance animal protection objectives by ensuring a more consistent and humane approach to farm animal breeding.

Ensuring sustainable food systems is an urgent global priority as populations grow and environmental pressures mount. Technological innovations such as genetic engineering (GE) and nanotechnology (nano) have been promoted as promising pathways for achieving greater sustainability in agriculture and food production. Yet, the sustainability of these technologies is not defined by technical performance alone; it hinges on how they are perceived by key stakeholders and how well they align with broader societal values. This study addresses the critical question of how expert stakeholders evaluate the sustainability of GE and nano-based food and agriculture (agrifood) products. Using a multi-method online platform, we engaged 42 experts across academia, government, industry, and NGOs in the United States to assess six real-world case studies—three using GE and three using nano—across ten different dimensions of sustainability. We show that nano-based products were consistently rated more favorably than their GE counterparts in terms of environmental, economic, and social sustainability, as well as across ethical and societal dimensions. Like prior studies, our results reveal that stakeholders see meaningful distinctions between nanotechnology and biotechnology, likely due to underlying value-based concerns about animal welfare, perceived naturalness, or corporate control of agrifood systems. The fruit coating and flu vaccine—both nano-enabled—received the most positive ratings, while GE mustard greens and salmon were the most polarizing. These results underscore the importance of incorporating stakeholder perspectives in technology assessment and innovation governance. These results also suggest that responsible innovation efforts in agrifood systems should prioritize communication, addressing meaningful societal needs, and the contextual understanding of societal values to build trust and legitimacy.