vi NARS scientists we can further advance breeding of crops critical to feeding much of the world's population like cassava, sorghum, millet and banana.Around the world, governments have taken a practical approach towards regulation: in cases where changes made via genome editing are synonymous with changes that could have been made using conventional breeding, products undergo similar safety assessments. For edits that lead to insertions of DNA, governments can rely on over three decades' worth of experience in transgenics. This clear regulatory approach has spurred investment by academic and public-sector developers who now have a path to product approvals.Any review of genome editing technology should be accompanied by a discussion on ethics. Valid concerns have been raised over the desire for an unaltered natural environment, maintenance of ancient germplasm, as well as animal rights, and cultures around the world will have questions about how the technology might comply or conflict with religious beliefs. Platforms for societal engagement are much needed to facilitate discussions on ethics, and to educate the public on the technology. Individuals should have the ability to choose products that meet their needs and adhere to their belief systems. A consumer of the future may choose an edited variety because they prioritize sustainability, animal welfare, have allergies, or prefer the taste. A farmer of the future may choose to grow an edited crop because it preserves a favoured variety while making it more resilient to a changing climate, or because it increases yield, or captures carbon from the atmosphere. A successful path to the future is one that includes informed choice.It is my hope that this report will serve as a guiding document for those seeking to responsibly and equitably deploy genome editing technologies. All of human health depends on agriculture. It has been just over 10 years since CRISPR genome editing emerged as a tool; now it is time to wield it wisely.