Countries such as the United States, where gene-edited plants are already grown and commercialized, will profit while the European Union continues to debate regulations governing their use. Your recommendation to spend the waiting time in public dialogue is a slap in the face for European scientists working with these technologies (Nature 542, 392; 2017).

Although public debate and biosafety evaluations are hugely important, European debates on genetic modification all too often end in deadlock — that of the Leopoldina (Germany's national science academy) being the most recent example. Further delays are likely if the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decides next year that gene-edited plants and animals should be considered as genetically modified organisms and therefore be subject to increased regulation. Meanwhile, gene-edited cultivars are waiting for outdoor field testing.

The European Commission set up a working group in 2007 to assess new breeding techniques within its legislation framework for genetically modified organisms. In 2011, it declared that only the ECJ can give a binding opinion on EU legislation for the products of these techniques. Today, the issue still lies dormant at the ECJ, with no end in sight after ten years (see also M. Fladung Nature Biotechnol. 34, 473–474; 2016).