The Canadian government is currently considering approving the entry of gene-edited pigs into the food system. Using CRISPR gene-editing technology, genetic changes can be created precisely and efficiently without introducing foreign genetic material. If approved, these pigs would be the first gene-edited food animals available for sale in Canadian markets. My research examines how including the public in decision-making around emerging applications of genomics can help mitigate potential harms.These pigs are resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), a horrible and sometimes fatal disease that affects pigs worldwide. PRRS has significant economic, food security and animal welfare implications. Read more: What is gene editing and how could it shape our future? The United States Food and Drug Administration recently greenlit the commercial production of gene-edited pigs. Will the Canadian government follow suit? AquAdvantage and EnviroPigIn 2016, Canada approved the first transgenic animal for human consumption — an Atlantic salmon called AquAdvantage salmon that contains DNA from other species of fish. This approval came more than 25 years after the genetically modified fish was created by scientists at Memorial University in Newfoundland. The approval and commercialization of AquAdvantage salmon faced strong public opposition on both sides of the border, including protests, supermarket boycotts and court battles. In 2024, the company that produced AquAdvantage salmon announced that it was shutting down its operations. Read more: The science and politics of genetically engineered salmon: 5 questions answered In 2012, the Canadian government approved the manufacture of a transgenic pig known by its trade name, EnviroPig. Created by scientists at the University of Guelph, EnviroPigs released less phosphorus than conventionally bred pigs. EnviroPig did not make it to market; the same year, the University of Guelph ended the EnviroPig project. Funding for the project had been suspended, in part because of consumer concerns.Government regulationSome researchers argue that government regulation of gene-edited animals should be less restrictive than for transgenic techniques. Gene editing introduces genetic changes that can occur with conventional animal breeding that is not subject to regulation. Gene-edited crops in Canada are treated the same as conventionally bred crops.Others insist that stringent government regulation is necessary for gene editing to identify potential problems and ensure that laws keep up with industry and scientific ambition. Regulation plays a vital role in minimizing risk, encouraging public involvement and building trust. Social science research has, for decades, demonstrated that resistance to biotechnology is not because of the public’s lack of knowledge, as is often argued by biotechnology proponents. Public resistance to biotechnology is better understood as a rejection of potential harms imposed by governments and industry without public input and consent.Ethical, moral, cultural and political concernsAt present, little opportunity exists for public engagement in Canadian assessments of gene-edited animals. Similar to the U.S., Canada does not have specific gene technology regulation. Rather, the federal government relies on pre-existing environmental and food safety legislation. Canadian regulatory agencies use a risk, novelty and product-based approach to assess animal biotechnology. From a regulatory standpoint, distinctions between technical processes — like transgenic modification versus gene editing — are less important than the safety of the final product. The Canadian government has recently updated its federal environmental and health regulations. This includes introducing mandatory public consultations for animals (vertebrates, specifically) created using biotechnology. Even with these changes, there’s still room for improvement. Public engagement is limited to consultations conducted within a short time frame. Interested parties are invited to provide scientific information about potential risks of animal biotechnology to human health or the environment, but comments that address ethical, moral, cultural or political concerns are not taken into consideration.More broadly, regulatory and academic debates about the gene editing of animals are largely informed by scientists and industry proponents with considerably less input from the public, Indigenous communities and social sciences and humanities researchers.Consulting the publicFrom a social standpoint, the process by which gene editing is assessed matters as much as the safety of the final product. Inclusive public engagement is essential to ensure that the production of gene-edited food animals aligns with societal needs and values. Reactions to gene technologies are based on underlying values and beliefs, and sustained opportunities for public reflection and deliberation are vital for responsible innovation. Important questions should be addressed: Who will reap the benefits of gene-editing techniques? Who will bear the costs and harms? What are the potential implications, including hard-to-anticipate social and political changes? How should decision-making proceed to ensure that Canadians have sufficient opportunities for input? Currently, for the gene-edited pigs, members of the public can submit comments to the government until July 20, 2025.Public reactions to previous biotech food animals in Canada — including AquAdvantage salmon and the EnviroPig — show that lack of inclusive engagement can contribute to the rejection of animal biotechnology.Gwendolyn Blue receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. She is a member of Gene Editing for Food Security and Environmental Sustainability, a multi-university consortium based at McGill University, and funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.