From CRISPR to consumer confidence: The path forward for gene-editing in agriculture

25 March 2026

6 minute read

By: Sarah Mikesell

As gene-edited animals move toward the food supply, the key question is no longer whether the technology works – it’s whether it delivers benefits that matter. With tools like PRRS-resistant pigs moving closer to commercial use, the conversation is shifting from what the technology is to what it delivers for animals and consumers.

According to Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam, Professor of Cooperative Extension in Animal Biotechnology and Genomics at the University of California–Davis, gene editing represents an evolution in how genetic progress is achieved rather than a departure from traditional breeding.

“Gene editing is a tool that enables us to go in and make tweaks in the DNA to introduce desired changes that give us a particular characteristic, attribute or trait,” Van Eenennaam said.

Unlike earlier forms of genetic engineering, which sometimes involved introducing foreign DNA into an organism like traditional GMOs (genetically modified organism), gene editing typically works by precisely altering an animal’s own genetic code. 

“We're not introducing foreign or transgenic DNA. That's the fundamental difference in most cases,” she explained. “Gene editing is exactly like what traditional breeding does, which is selecting on desired genetic alterations to give us a particular characteristic. We've developed our modern productive lines of pigs through selection on naturally occurring genetic variations.” 

She stressed that gene editing does not necessarily replace conventional breeding. Instead, it complements it. 

Disease resistance as a turning point

One of the most discussed applications of gene editing in livestock is the PRRS-resistant pig. Van Eenennaam said its importance lies in the fact that resistance can be achieved through a single genetic change.

“In this particular example with the PRRS-resistant pig, it's actually a single gene alteration that renders the pig no longer susceptible to the disease,” she said. “By making the edit at this one gene, you can get fully PRRS disease-resistant pigs.” 

She described this as relatively rare, noting that most economically important traits are controlled by many genes. But where single-gene traits exist, gene editing can offer an approach to achieve desired genetics into breeding herds.

“How do we manage disease in animal populations?” she asked. “We can try to prevent it, we can try to treat sick animals, or we could have animals that are disease resistant. Then, we've actually solved the problem using genetics, which is permanent and cumulative, because the trait is passed on from generation to generation.”

Applications beyond swine

Gene editing is already being used across agriculture, including both plant and animal systems. Examples include crops developed for quality traits like increased levels of vitamins and microminerals, eliminating toxicants and introducing beneficial compounds.

“There have been cattle that have been edited for traits like not growing horns (polled), or slick, which is a heat-tolerant trait in cattle,” she said.

Outside of agriculture, gene editing has advanced rapidly in human medicine, with hundreds of therapeutic programs in development worldwide. The majority of these efforts target cancer and inherited genetic disorders, which together account for most current clinical applications. 

Risk, safety and public scrutiny

Van Eenennaam argued that many concerns about gene editing stem from misunderstandings carried over from earlier GMO debates. When the animal’s own genes are silenced, rather than novel transgenes being added, she said, the risk profile changes fundamentally.

From her perspective, gene editing poses the same food-safety considerations as conventional breeding. 

“DNA variation per se is not a food safety hazard,” she said. “It's exactly the same risks as conventional breeding, which has an incredibly safe history of use in animal agriculture.” 

Still, she acknowledged that public trust depends on alignment with societal values. Applications that improve animal welfare, reduce disease and limit antibiotic use are easier to justify than traits perceived as offering solely producer or indirect benefits.

“If you can take horns off cattle genetically instead of having to cut or burn them off, that generally aligns with public values,” Van Eenennaam said. “Disease resistance traits, like with the PRRS resistant pig, is an obvious example of a trait that you can pretty easily argue is a triple win for sustainability – better for the animal, producer and the environment.”

Consumer research shows it’s about perceived benefit 

While scientific precision matters, Charlie Arnot, founder and CEO of The Center for Food Integrity (CFI), said consumer acceptance of gene editing hinges on something else: perceived benefit.

“We've learned over a period of time that acceptance is driven by the perceived benefit,” Arnot said. “Is the benefit sufficient to me or something I care about? And if so, the technology is simply a means to the end. For example, people aren’t interested in how their iPhone was built – they’re interested in what it does for them. It's no different with this technology.” 

In recent research conducted in partnership with FMI, The Food Industry Association, CFI tested reactions to four gene-edited food applications, including a PRRS-resistant pig. The focus was not on the technology itself, but on the outcomes it delivered.

“We were interested in putting the benefits into categories we thought would be relevant to consumers,” he said. “The benefit was much more important than the technology that supported it.”

Those benefit categories included animal welfare, public health, personal health, supply stability and food-waste reduction. Each consumer was asked whether they would definitely buy the product produced through gene editing.

“What was surprising to me was the application that performed the best was the PRRS-resistant pig,” Arnot said, noting that acceptance levels were comparable for tomatoes and bananas.

According to the study, more than four out of five consumers said they would definitely buy products tied to clearly articulated benefits. 

“Again, the technology is just a means to that end,” Arnot said. 

Messaging that resonates

One key finding, Arnot said, was that detailed explanations of gene editing had little impact on acceptance. 

“It's really all about the benefits,” he said. “Historically with consumers, we wanted to educate them about the technology and our scientific processes. When, in fact, people just want to know whether or not the benefits are sufficient enough for them to say, ‘I'm fine with the technology’.”

Consumers also responded positively when messages reinforced that taste and quality would not change. 

“People buy for taste; they buy for quality,” Arnot said. “And if you're not changing that, and you can still provide these benefits, it drives consumer acceptance.” 

One additional lesson learned from Arnot’s previous research shows that entering the conversation through human applications encourages people to be more accepting of gene editing overall. 

“There are more than 3,000 gene editing applications being developed in human medicine, with about half targeting cancer,” he said. “Everyone knows someone who has been impacted by cancer. When you help people understand that this technology has significant opportunity in human medicine to deliver benefits that are important to you, they're more supportive of the technology.”

The path forward requires delivering benefits consumers value

“There are more than 500 gene editing applications potentially coming to market in food and agriculture, from asparagus to yams to high GABA tomatoes, to non-browning bananas and many, many others,” said Arnot. “The question isn't ‘will gene-edited products actually end up in the supply chain?’ The question is, ‘which gene-edited applications will end up in which supply chains?’”

He cautions groups from favoring one specific application and recommends agriculture and other sectors support the technology broadly, because it's going to provide a lot of important empowering benefits to society. 

For both scientists and communicators, the takeaway is clear: gene editing will not earn public trust by focusing on molecular tools or regulatory frameworks alone. Acceptance depends on whether people see the technology delivering outcomes they value.