Full disclosure I have a masters in Biomedicine and work in the biotech sector so take this with that in mind.

Personally I see functionally next to no difference in what people are branding as gene editing from what's come in the past as it still falls into the GMO category. Historically non-targeted techniques would be used to deliver genetic payloads to cell nuclei which added a degree of randomness into the process but for as long as I've been involved in science CRISPR has been the standard which introduces much less variability and allows much better targeting than electroporation with a load of plasmids and crossing your fingers and hoping it ends up in the right place.

In the pharma/biotech sector we've been using gene editing as a staple technique for years for everything from producing insulin by inserting insulin genes into cells to creating disease models for cancer by adding in oncogenes or knocking out tumour suppressors. It's so incredibly useful and I've really struggled to see why we wouldn't want to use this to improve other areas of society such as food availability and nutrition.

Basically GM is good and i'm not sure I agree with rebranding it as gene editing as it muddys the waters. Gene editing is what was essentially always happening when referring to GMOs anyway!

Personally I think us understanding and being able to manipulate the genetic code of living things is just the most sci-fi and