 |
|
|
|||||
Changing an organisms genome is a profound act, and the tools you use to make the changes don’t alleviate the need for responsible regulation. Since bursting onto the scene in 2012, CRISPR technology has been used to modify dozens of species from bacteria to livestock to plants, and even human embryos. Many countries have put ethical guardrails in place to prohibit creating designer babies. However, in agriculture, gene-edited crops are largely exempt from regulatory oversight, creating a “Wild West” where anything goes and edited crops are free to enter the food supply. Unlike traditional genetically modified organisms (GMO)used since the 1990s to create Roundup Ready seeds and many other widely used productsediting doesnt involve inserting transgenic DNA from other organisms. Instead, it tweaks the genes that already exist. As such, proponents claim its a safer approach: no Frankenfoods, just selective breeding on steroids. Following a massive industry lobbying campaign, such arguments have gained traction around the world. In Europe, regulators are forging ahead with a two-tier regulatory system for modified crops. While traditional GMOs remain heavily regulated, gene-edited crops are being given a free pass, with no oversight or labeling required. (Some heavily edited crops will still undergo a degree of scrutiny, though far less than GMO crops.) GENE EDITING NEEDS OVERSIGHT In the U.S., the USDAs SECURE Rule had, since 2020, similarly exempted most edited crops from regulatory oversightuntil it was ruled arbitrary and capricious and struck down last December by a California judge. For now, the USDA has reverted to its pre-2020 rulebookfull of red tape, but at least even-handed in the burdens imposed on agtech innovators. The issue here isnt that theres anything wrong with gene editing. One of us (Randall) spent several years leading gene editing research at numerous companies, including Inari, Arcadia, and Monsanto (now Bayer), and we can tell you that CRISPR is an incredible tool. Its already being used to create amazing new productsfrom bananas that wont go brown to rice thats resistant to destructive viruses. Researchers are also developing vitamin-packed tomatoes, carbon-sequestering strains of rice, and high-yield wheat. They should be applauded: Well need all these innovations, and more, to grow healthy, tasty, and affordable food for billions of people in a warming world. But while there isnt anything uniquely dangerous about gene editing, there isnt anything uniquely safe about it either. With both gene editing and transgenic methods, youre rewriting the genomeand what matters is the impact of the new genetic content, not where the underlying DNA letters came from. Whatever methods are used, genetic engineering can deliver enormous benefits, but brings real risksand requires proper oversight to ensure safety and maintain public confidence. THE GMO BACKLASH However, the current bifurcated approach that gives gene editing a pass creates a significant risk that regulators are sowing the seeds of a future backlash against genetic engineering. Paradoxically, GMO crops have one important benefit over gene-edited crops: Precisely because they contain transgenic genetic information, they can be easily detected using simple lab testing. Gene-edited crops, on the other hand, are typically indistinguishable from conventional crops, so if an edited crop were found to have harmful traits, it would be extremely difficultand unimaginably expensiveto verifiably remove it from the global food chain. The approach also distorts the marketplace by creating incentives for gene editing at the expense of future innovations using proven GMO technologies that farmers and consumers already rely on. Unfortunately, by downplaying the need for meaningful oversight of edited crops, we risk playing into the hands of the least scrupulous market participants. In China, gene editing techniques have already been misused to unlawfully edit the genomes of unborn babies, and Chinese firms are racing to create gene-edited medical treatments in ways that have raised eyebrows among Western regulators. Now, China is actively promoting gene editing for crops and livestock, too, in a bid to end its reliance on U.S. soybeans and other farm exports. Want to place a bet that no corners will be cut along the way? Were no Luddites, with Randall spending his career using genetic techniques to improve crops. Genetic engineering, encompassing both transgenic methods and gene editing, is the defining technological breakthrough of our time (sorry, ChatGPT). But its also among the most misunderstood, and certainly the most maligned, of modern technologies. Crop innovators, burned once by the demonization of GMOs, are understandably eager to avoid tarring gene editing methods with the same brush. A BACKDOOR APPROACH But in the rush to wave through gene editing technologies, were falling into the same trap. The industrys arrogant dismissal of safety concerns turned an entire generation against GMOs. Now, instead of being forthright with consumers about the power and potential of gene editing, the industry is trying to sneak it in by the back door as simply an extension of selective breeding methods used since the dawn of agriculture. The reality is more nuanced. Theres no need to panic about gene editing methods. But theres also no scientific basis for casting GMO crops as bad and edited crops as good. Both gene editing and genetic modification are incredibly powerful toolsand the novel plant traits they enable should be welcomed. But they should also be regulated, carefully and effectivelyand regulated as products, based on their own unique attributes, regardless of the processes used to create them. Its time to move away from process-oriented regulations and focus instead on creating a level playing field for both transgenic and gene-edited crops. We need an honest conversation and clear-eyed regulations of both technologies to protect the safety of the food chainand ensure that vital new agtech breakthroughs continue to develop in safe, transparent, and sustainable ways. Shely Aronov is CEO and cofounder of Innerplant. Randell Schultz, PhD, is vice president of research and development at Innerplant.
Category:
E-Commerce
Dicks Sporting Goods (NYSE: DKS) announced it will close select Foot Locker stores and raised its full-year year outlook, in its third quarter earnings report on Tuesday. While Dick’s has not disclosed how many locations it will shutter (Fast Company has reached out for confirmation), it is part of a larger restructuring effort, according to executive chairman Ed Stack who spoke with CNBC. Dick’s acquired leading footwear and apparel retailer Foot Locker for $2.5 billion back in September, according to its latest earnings release. As of November 1, the company was operating 3,230 store locations across the combined Dick’s and Foot Locker businesses globally. Shares in the Pittsburgh-based sports retailer were up about 1% at the time of this writing by late afternoon on Tuesday. “[Dick’s] is taking strategic actions to address unproductive assets, including the optimization of inventory and the closure of underperforming stores,” Dick’s said in its earnings release. “The company believes these actions will lay the groundwork for the success of the Foot Locker Business starting in 2026.” Once it optimizes inventory and shutters those underperforming stores, Dick’s said it expects Q4 2025 operating profit for Foot Locker to be just “slightly negative.” Dick’s third quarter revenue came in at $4.17 billion beating expectations of $3.59 billion; and reported earnings per share (EPS) of $2.78 adjusted versus $2.71. Dick’s is working to offset declining traffic, (Q3 foot traffic was down 2.6% year-over-year) by deepening digital engagement through its Game Changer app, (which had 7.4 million unique active users last quarter) expanding its House of Sport locations, and is betting on its recent Foot Locker acquisition to drive in-store growth, according to Placer.ai.
Category:
E-Commerce
Spurred to action by tech industry lobbyists and insiders, Republicans in the Senate appear to be planning to add language to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would preempt states from passing laws regulating AI labs. Two sources with knowledge tell Fast Company that a small group of GOP lawmakers, staffers, and tech lobbyists worked through the weekend crafting the new language. Heading into Thanksgiving, much uncertainty hangs over the fate of the state-level moratorium – and a fair amount of secrecy about how the AI industry and its MAGA allies will try to tie the hands of states, and Congress, to regulate AI. Democrats and others may not be allowed to see the new language until the vote to pass or reject the NDAA, a so-called must-pass bill that funds the military. Senate Democrats also have no visibility on the scope of the moratorium language that will go in the NDAA. Could it, for example, prevent states from passing any and all kinds of AI laws, including those that focus on consumer protection issues or AI-related unemployment? What big tech is trying to do here is an even larger giveaway than Section 230, says Future of Life Institutes head of U.S. policy Michael Kleinman. (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 exempted tech platforms from liability for user-generated content.) You literally have big tech lobbyists meeting with a handful of senior Republicans trying over the course of a holiday weekend to craft legislation that will govern what state governments can do around AI for the futureits appalling. Not long after Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise, the House Majority Leader, introduced the preemption measure last week, Massachusetts Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey quickly penned and sent a letter to their colleagues urging them to oppose adding the state moratorium — which they describe as a “poison pill — to the NDAA, which will need 60 GOP votes to end a Democratic filibuster and advance to a final vote. Attorneys General representing 36 states sent a letter to Congressional leadership opposing the state moratorium language. Congress is not in session because of the Thanksgiving holiday. But Republicans plan to make another push to convince lawmakers to add the state preemption to the NDAA when they return December 1, sources say. Last week, the White House proposed a route that bypasses Congress, circulating a draft executive order (EO) that proposes pulling back congressionally approved broadband funding from any state enacting new AI laws. The EO also proposed creating a new Department of Justice task force to challenge existing state AI laws. The White House had reportedly planned to release the EO last Friday, but chose to delay it. Many of the people who would benefit from a state AI moratorium were present at a November 18 White House state dinner hosted by President Donald Trump for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. These include Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, OpenAIs Greg Brockman, AMD CEO Lisa Su, and Apple CEO Tim Cook. David Sacks, Trumps AI and crypto czar and venture capitalist, was also among the attendees. Given the import of stifling AI regulation whenever and wherever possible, its very likely that the state AI law moratorium was discussed while these people were in Washington for the event, one Washington source said. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz tried last summer to tuck the preemption into the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (an appropriations measure) last summer, but senators voted 99-1 to remove it. The moratorium idea is unpopular with the public, survey data shows, and unpopular across the political spectrum in Washington DC. Despite broad opposition, tech industry insiders such as Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk, and Sacks have Trumps ear, and have helped keep the state preemption idea alive in the Capitol. Big techs big opportunity In a broad sense, the chance to keep government oversight away from what could be the most impactful technology in a generation may explain why tech moguls and opinion leaders threw their support behind Donald Trump before the 2024 election and have continued to praise and appease him. While the Trump administration rewards his tech industry allies by killing government inquiries and regulation, big U.S. tech companies and financiers are now sinking trillions into building the infrastructure needed to support a massive expansion of generative AI. The AI industry has been ramping up its lobbying spend over the past two years to stifle AI regulation at both the federal and state levels. Its also expanding into electoral politics. This summer a group of AI companies and investors launched a super PAC worth $100 million called Leading the Future that will push pro-AI candidates and oppose pro-AI regulation candidates. Backers include a16z, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Perplexity AI, and angel investor Ron Conway. On a legal level, some in the tech industry, including the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, argue that state laws should focus on the application, not the development, of AIsuch as to prevent or punish things like fraud or civil rights violationswhile federal law should govern the national AI market. AI companies also fear being burdened by a patchwork of state AI regulations instead of a single set of federal rules. Tom Kemp, who directs the California Privacy Protection Agency, explains that in many tech policy issues theres a debate over the boundary between issues covered by federal law and issues covered by state law. But Congress hasnt come close to passing a broad AI safety and transparency law, and isnt likely to. The fundamental issue they have is that there’s no federal backstop, Kemp says. So the moratorium basically says you just can’t do any laws having to do with AI. Innovation versus states rights Many state governors, including Florida Republican Ron DeSantis, and legislators, claim they have not just a right but a responsibility to enact AI laws to protect the public in the absence of a federal law. State lawmakers are very aware of the series of reports about AI chatbots exacerbating mental health problems in users, including younger ones. There’s a big concern that state legislators cannot protect kids from some of the harms of AI, Kemp says. On Monday, a bipartisan group of 280 state lawmakers from across the country sent a letter to lawmakers in the House and Senate opposing the state AI law preemption, saying it would hamstring their efforts to address the impacts of artificial intelligence. The tech lobby and its Republican allies frame the moratorium as critical to helping the U.S. maintain its lead in AI — technology that will be increasingly used in defense and national security. But even the top players in defense dont seem convinced. You need the four corners of the armed forces committees to be all approved, says Kemp, who met with lawmakers last week in Washington to discuss the issue. In other words, the majority and minority leaders of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have to agree to insert state AI preemption language into the NDAA. Kemp believes that Alabama Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, and Washington Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, the committees ranking member, are opposed, as is Senate Committee on Armed Services ranking member Jack Reed. Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker, the chairman of the committee, has yet to announce his position. Its possible that new language in the NDAA will go beyond a state-level pre-emption, and promote some form of broad, but weak, federal AI law that limits oversight by both federal and state regulators. On Monday the Leading the Future PAC launched a $10 million campaign to push Congress to craft a national AI policy that would override a patchwork of state laws, reports CNBC. What we’re seeing, not just with preemption, but with these big tech super PACs is that big tech will go to any effort to undermine that overwhelming small-D democratic will, Kleinman says. All the polling that we have done and that others have done shows that consistently across the board strong majorities of both parties support AI regulation.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||