IN THE RACE TO FEED NINE BILLION PEOPLE BY 2050 ON THE SAME RESOURCES OF TODAY'S CROPS, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH HAS FOCUSED ON GENETIC IMPROVEMENT OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS WORK COMES FROM TRADITIONAL BREEDING- SIMPLY CROSSING SELECT MALES AND FEMALES FOLLOWED BY EVALUATION OF OFFSPRING. BREEDING TIMELINES HAVE BEEN GREATLY HASTENED BY GENOMIC SELECTION STRATEGIES AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES THAT SPEED GENERATION TIME. STILL, THE GLACIAL PACE OF PLANT AND ANIMAL BREEDING CANNOT KEEP PACE WITH THE DEMAND FOR IMPROVED VARIETIES IN A TIME OF INCREASING RESOURCE SCARCITY AND CHANGING CLIMATE.THE TECHNIQUES KNOWN AS "GENE EDITING" STAND TO ADD PRECISION AND SPEED TO THE GENETIC IMPROVEMENT PROCESS. GENE-EDITING TECHNOLOGY HAS THE ABILITY TO SILENCE, REPLACE, OR ADD GENES WITHOUT USING A DONOR ORGANISM (E.G., AGROBACTERIUM), CREATING A FINAL CUSTOM PRODUCT IDENTICAL TO ONE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY TRADITIONAL BREEDING OVER DECADES OR CENTURIES. ONE METHOD OF GENEEDITING (CRISPR/CAS9) WAS SELECTED AS THE 2015 BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR BY SCIENCE (TRAVIS, 2015).BUT WILL GENE EDITING BE WELCOMED BY A PUBLIC THAT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND GENETICS OR THE NEED FOR IMPROVED FOOD CROPS AND ANIMALS? WHILE GENE-EDITING TECHNOLOGY WILL MOST LIKELY IMPROVE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE TECHNOLOGY TO ACHIEVE ITS FULL POTENTIAL (MACFIE, 2007). IT IS IMPERATIVE TO EXAMINE LESSONS LEARNED FROM PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO CURRENT GENETIC ENGINEERING (GE) TECHNOLOGY SO THAT THE BENEFITS TO SOCIETY FROM GENE-EDITING, AND FUTURE GENOMIC TECHNOLOGY, CAN BE MAXIMIZED.A MAJOR LESSON LEARNED FROM CONSUMER OPPOSITION TO CURRENT GE TECHNOLOGY IS THAT SIMPLY PROVIDING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT SAFETY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WIN PUBLIC TRUST. WHILE MORE THAN 280 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS SUPPORT THE SAFETY OF GE FOOD (NORERO, 2017), ALMOST ALL CONSUMERS THINK A MANDATORY LABEL IS NECESSARY (MCFADDEN AND LUSK, 2016) LIKELY BECAUSE OF A PERCEIVED RISK TO EITHER HUMAN OR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (STOFER AND SCHIEBEL, 2017A). A STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER FOUND ONLY 37% OF U.S. CONSUMERS BELIEVE THAT GE FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT, COMPARED TO 88% OF SCIENTIST MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (FUNK AND RAINIE, 2015). ADDITIONAL RESEARCH HAS IDENTIFIED THAT CONSUMERS OPPOSE THE STATEMENT GE FOODS ARE SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF GE FOOD (RUTH ET AL., 2017). IN FACT, MCFADDEN AND LUSK (2015, 2016) DEMONSTRATED THAT AMONG THE U.S. PUBLIC AUDIENCE, BELIEFS ABOUT THE SAFETY OF GE FOOD INGREDIENTS IS UNIFORMLY DIVIDED BETWEEN: SAFE, UNSAFE, AND NOT SURE.INTUITIVELY, INCREASED SCIENCE COMMUNICATION APPEARS TO BE THE SOLUTION TO DECREASE THE LARGE GAP BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENTISTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THIS DEFICIT MODEL ASSUMES THAT CONSUMER SKEPTICISM OF GE TECHNOLOGY PERSISTS BECAUSE OF A LACK OF INFORMATION AND THAT DECREASING THE INFORMATION FAILURE WILL ALSO DECREASE SKEPTICISM. HOWEVER, AS RECENTLY POINTED OUT BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE (2017):"PEOPLE RARELY MAKE DECISIONS BASED ONLY ON SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION; THEY TYPICALLY ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THEIR OWN GOALS AND NEEDS, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS, AND VALUES AND BELIEFS. A RELATED WIDESPREAD ASSUMPTION IN BOTH THE SCIENTIFIC AND SCIENCE COMMUNICATION COMMUNITIES IS THAT IF ONLY SCIENCE COMMUNICATION WERE DONE "BETTER," PEOPLE WOULD MAKE CHOICES CONSISTENT WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. THIS ASSUMPTION HAS NOT BEEN FULLY TESTED IN DIVERSE SITUATIONS. AND ALTHOUGH PEOPLE MAY NEED TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION OR TO HAVE INFORMATION PRESENTED MORE CLEARLY, A FOCUS ON KNOWLEDGE ALONE OFTEN IS INSUFFICIENT FOR ACHIEVING COMMUNICATION GOALS."IN ADDITION, EVEN IF PEOPLE ARE MORE AWARE AND MORE SCIENTIFICALLY INFORMED DOES NOT MEAN THEY CHANGE BEHAVIOR (CHAZDON ET AL, 2016; MCKENZIE-MOHR, 2013). THUS, TRUE ACCEPTANCE OF AND SUPPORT FOR GENE-EDITING TECHNOLOGY DEPENDS ON OTHER FACTORS THAN JUST TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION AND SIMPLY SUPPLYING MORE INFORMATION IS UNLIKELY TO DECREASE THE INFORMATION FAILURE ASSOCIATED WITH GENE-EDITING TECHNOLOGY. COMMUNICATING SCIENCE EFFECTIVELY TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR IS A COMPLEX TASK, AND WHAT WILL BE MOST EFFECTIVE FOR SPECIFIC AUDIENCES AND CONTEXTS IS NOT OBVIOUS OR UBIQUITOUS. A SINGLE MESSAGE IS UNLIKELY TO BE EFFECTIVE AT ADDRESSING ALL AUDIENCES' CONCERNS AND BARRIERS TO BEHAVIOR CHANGE. TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE SCIENCE, A COMMUNICATOR SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AN INDIVIDUAL'S SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFS, VALUES, LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THE TOPIC, LEVEL OF TRUST ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMUNICATION SOURCE, AND PREFERRED COMMUNICATION CHANNEL. WHILE VALUES, ENGAGEMENT, AND TRUST ARE NOT WELL DEFINED AND DIFFICULT TO MEASURE, SCIENTISTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER HOW THESE FACTORS AFFECT SCIENCE COMMUNICATION. AND PREFERENCES FOR REGULATION AND CONSUMPTION OF GENE-EDITED FOODS.FURTHERMORE, VALUES, ENGAGEMENT, AND TRUST MAY AFFECT PREFERENCES FOR REGULATION AND CONSUMPTION OF GENE-EDITED FOODS DIFFERENTLY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEPARATE PREFERENCES FOR INDIRECT INFLUENCE THROUGH REGULATION FROM DIRECT INFLUENCE THROUGH CONSUMPTION WHEN EXAMINING PREFERENCES FOR FOOD TECHNOLOGY, BECAUSE THESE PREFERENCES DO NOT ALWAYS ALIGN AND MAY RESULT IN A "CITIZEN VERSUS CONSUMER" DILEMMA (VERBEKE ET AL, 2010; BATLEY ET AL. 2001). THE CITIZEN BEHAVES AS MORE OF A MORAL AGENT THAN THE CONSUMER. AN EXAMPLE OF THE CITIZEN VERSUS CONSUMER DILEMMA RECENTLY OCCURRED DURING THE VOTE ON PROPOSITION 2 IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE 63.5% OF VOTERS OPTED TO BAN CAGED EGGS WHILE LESS THAN 10% OF ALL EGG SALES WERE CAGE FREE OR ORGANIC BEFORE THE VOTE (NORWOOD AND LUSK, 2011).