**4. Social acceptance and regulation**

Genome editing with engineered nucleases (GEEN) has evolved as a highly specific and efficient tool for crop improvement with the potential to rapidly generate useful novel phenotypes. This leads to the emergence of new plant breeding technologies such as to allow the investigation of gene functions and inducing variations for crop improvement. Among these, CRISPR/Cas9 system is now one of the trending applications in plant breeding. Besides the CRISPR/Cas9 system, there are also other plant-breeding technologies that involve cis-genesis and intra-genesis such as transgenic development, whereby unspecific mutagenesis is induced by radiation or chemicals that are much faster and efficient than the conventional breeding method [66]. A question arises as to how genetically edited plants with desired traits will be received by the public and regulated within legislation on genetically modified organism (GMO). According to a recent survey comparing scientist and citizen views on a range of science, engineering and technology issues [67], the most pronounced difference obtained from the study was found on the question addressing the safety of consuming genetically engineered crops; whereby 37% of the public at large responded that GM foods are generally safe to eat, whereas 88% of scientists interviewed recognized GM foods as generally safe [66].

There are two sides to this discussion. Those who take the view that new plant breeding technique (NPBT) such as CRISPR/Cas9 system should be exempted from GMO legislation argued that the products are similar to the products generated from conventional breeding methods. The opponents contend that the process used to generate the plants is in fact genetically modified. As stated in the European Law, the definition of GMO means an organism with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.' Europe Commission (EC) has stressed that the decision to include or exclude a technique from the scope of Directives 2001/18/EC and 2009/41/EC depends only on the interpretation of the definition of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified microorganisms and of the conditions for exemption provided for in the two directives [68]. There are regulators such as the German Consumer Protection Association, or also known as Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (VZBV) and Swedish scientists that call for the exclusion of such 'gene editing' from GMO regulation as long as such crops do not contain any 'foreign DNA' [69]. The evaluation is sophisticated because the definition of GMO under European Union (EU) law refers both to the characteristics of organisms and to the techniques used. To date, a clarifying legal opinion of the EC is still pending. Until the legal opinion is released, the legal status of living organisms as well as products deriving from NPBT approaches is unclear [70].

In the United State, the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology (CFRB) determined that it is the final product of genetic engineering that potentially poses a risk to human health and the environment, not the process by which the product is made [71]. The engineered products could be channeled to and handled by regulatory net involving Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) depending on what category it falls into [71]. In April 2016, a CRISPR edited, nonbrowning mushroom emerged as the first CRISPR-derived product to be approved by USDA [72].
