Countdown Begins: Hi & Fi Asia-China 2025 To Unveil Industry Breakthroughs In 20 Days
SHANGHAI, June 5, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- With just three weeks remaining, anticipation builds for Hi & Fi Asia-China 2025, Asia's premier trade platform for health ingredients and food innovation. The landmark event, taking place June 24-26 at Shanghai's National Exhibition and Convention Center (NECC), promises to deliver groundbreaking innovations, critical market insights, and unparalleled networking opportunities for the global food and nutrition industry.
Awards Spotlight: Final Days for Fi Innovation Submissions
The inaugural Fi Innovation Awards program enters its final submission phase, with the June 8 deadline fast approaching. Open to both exhibitors and non-exhibitors, the awards recognize excellence across three key categories:
Fi Technology Innovation Awards
Fi Health Innovation Awards
Fi Sustainable Innovation Awards
The Awards will be judged by an esteemed panel of industry experts, including Annie Liu (Innova Market Insights), Dr. Lei Li (Shanghai Jiao Tong University), Jianqiang Bao (Shanghai Food Additives Association), Dr. Vetamur Krishnakumar (Giract), Rusong Li (Solidaridad), and Tao Zhang (Daofoods). These distinguished judges bring decades of combined experience across health ingredients, food technology, and sustainable innovation.
Global Knowledge Exchange: Bilingual Forum Lineup
This year's conference program features four bilingual forums designed to bridge industry knowledge:
Sports Nutrition Breakthroughs (Hosted with ISSN) featuring Dr. Johan Thuvander of NHITEK
Global Trade Pathways with latest EUDR and CSDDD compliance strategies
Omega-3 Market Deep Dive led by GOED's Ellen Schutt
Sustainable Ingredient Sourcing with Solidaridad experts
Specialized Innovation Tour
Innova Market Insights will lead the popular "Beauty Walk" tour, showcasing breakthrough nutricosmetic innovations from featured exhibitors including Givaudan (Booth 41F40) and Synceres Biosciences (Booth 21D45).
Brazil Takes Important Stage
The Brazil Theme Day on June 25 will highlight South America's growing influence in nutraceuticals.
Enhanced International Attendee Program
Recognizing growing global participation, organizers have expanded benefits for overseas visitors:
Complimentary services including visa support
Exhibitor and exhibit catalogs valued at￥200
2 free lunch vouchers
VIP lounge access
Limited-edition Chinese souvenir (￥50 value)
Guide in China – A comprehensive digital handbook covering:
Transportation tips (airport transfers, public transit)
Payment solutions (Alipay/WeChat setup guide)
Cultural recommendation (business customs, dining tips)
Registration & Participation
With over 500 exhibitors and 15,000 attendees expected, early registration is strongly encouraged.
Event registration: https://b8h.cn/y9Kq9O
Awards submission: https://www.figlobal.com/china/en/whats-on/awards/this-year.html
About Hi & Fi Asia-China
Now in its 26th edition, Hi & Fi Asia-China is the definitive marketplace for food ingredients, health innovations and sustainable solutions in Asia. The event is organized by Informa Markets, a global leader in B2B events and digital services.
Media Contact:Sini Bai+86 21 3339 2222Sini.bai@informa.com
View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/apac/news-releases/countdown-begins-hi--fi-asia-china-2025-to-unveil-industry-breakthroughs-in-20-days-302472969.html
SOURCE Hi & Fi Asia-China
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Climate Lawsuits Are Weakening America And Strengthening China
A Chinese flag flies in front of a coal fired power plant in Tianjin. China has been building new ... More coal-fired power plants, with construction starts reaching a ten-year high in 2024. (Photo by) Sen. Ted Cruz deserves credit for saying what too many in Washington are unwilling to admit. American energy security is under coordinated attack, and it is not just coming from progressive environmental activists. It's being encouraged and in some cases funded by our top geopolitical rival. On Wednesday, Sen. Cruz's Judiciary oversight subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine how China and America's climate litigation movement are working in parallel to undermine U.S. energy dominance. These efforts are being carried out under the banner of environmental protection and the clean energy transition, but the real goal is to weaken America's energy sector and give the advantage to China in global energy and manufacturing markets. Climate cases brought by plaintiff firms like Sher Edling are supported by a network of well-funded foundations and nonprofits that are unwittingly advancing the strategic interests of America's adversaries by weakening domestic energy production and increasing our dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains—particularly those dominated by China. There is growing recognition that this is a national security problem. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has warned that the Chinese Communist Party is actively working to 'directly and malignly influence state and local leaders to promote China's global agenda.' A recent report by national security nonprofit State Armor outlines how China has co-opted elements of the U.S. climate lobby to drive a transition away from fossil fuels. The result is greater U.S. reliance on Chinese-controlled technologies, minerals, and supply chains. China dominates the global markets for lithium, cobalt, solar panels, and battery components. It stands to gain enormously from U.S. policies that force a premature shift away from traditional energy sources. The report spotlights Energy Foundation China (EFC) which claims to be a nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco. In reality, its staff are mostly based in Beijing, and its operations align closely with the Chinese Communist Party's interests. EFC has spent millions supporting anti-fossil fuel groups in the United States, including the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC was the subject of a 2018 congressional inquiry over whether it should register as a foreign agent due to its ties to China. House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders last year warned that 'China has already attempted to influence United States policy and opinion through covert influence and by exploiting perceived societal divisions.' Their letter raised concerns about China-affiliated organizations influencing U.S. energy policy. A number of foundations have played a role in financing climate litigation efforts nationwide. A decade of litigation that most likely would not have happened without their financial backing. Major donors to this network include some of the largest philanthropic institutions in the country, including the Children's Investment Fund, MacArthur, Rockefeller, and Hewlett foundations. Yet few of these donors have accounted for the risk of foreign manipulation embedded in the organizations they fund. The influence campaign also extends into U.S. academic institutions. The National Natural Science Foundation of China, a government-run research entity, has published articles in American journals criticizing fossil fuels and accusing U.S. companies of deceptive practices. One of EFC's top communications directors previously held a position at that same Chinese foundation. At the same time, the revolving door between activist nonprofits and government agencies is raising serious ethical and legal questions. Ann Carlson, a senior official in the Biden administration, previously sat on the board of the Environmental Law Institute while also consulting for Sher Edling. This institute has hosted multiple educational events with Chinese organizations on 'climate litigation capacity building' aimed at influencing judges and shaping the legal landscape in both countries. Sen. Cruz is right to shine a spotlight on these connections. There is no shortage of outside forces fueling this wave of litigation, and his subcommittee is well positioned to expose them. The American people deserve transparency about who is bankrolling the litigation assault on domestic energy and to what end. This is not simply the work of environmentalists who believe they are saving the planet. It includes adversarial foreign actors with a vested interest in weakening U.S. energy leadership and shifting global influence away from the United States. President Trump's energy dominance agenda is helping restore American strength by unleashing domestic production and lowering energy prices. But the progress made is at risk. Foreign interference, opaque litigation funding, and activist-driven policy by lawsuit are undermining U.S. energy security. Prior administrations allowed this framework to take hold by ceding policymaking authority to the courts. China is more than happy to watch us tie our economy in regulatory knots while it builds new coal-fired power plants, locks in oil and gas contracts with OPEC+ members, and consolidates control over clean energy technologies. If we let this trend continue, we are handing Beijing exactly what it wants. We need stronger congressional oversight, new transparency requirements for nonprofits that receive foreign-linked funding, and a renewed national focus on producing energy here at home. That starts by recognizing that this is not just a political disagreement. It's a strategic threat to our country's future.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street Watches As Money Flows Out Of US Markets — Is The 'Great Rotation' Here?
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. The global market is witnessing a significant shift in investor sentiment, with a notable move away from U.S. assets. This trend, a phenomenon that cannot be solely attributed to a weakening dollar, as per a report by Société Générale. What Happened: The shift in market leadership, with international stocks outperforming their U.S. counterparts, has sparked a debate on Wall Street. Some are wondering if this is a temporary phase or a sign of a longer-term trend, reported MarketWatch Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Arthur van Slooten, a strategist at Société Générale who monitors fund flows, believes that the current shift could be the start of a significant rotation, which is in its early stages. '..clear confirmation that the great rotation has started,' he shared with the publication. van Slooten's analysis of recent fund flows from ETFs and mutual funds revealed five key observations. Europe has emerged as the preferred destination for investors, with equity inflows nearly double that of the U.S. Global developed-market funds have also seen nearly twice the level of inflows compared to U.S. direct funds. Emerging markets are making a strong recovery, with China-focused funds attracting $11 billion in inflows. Although the weakening U.S. dollar has played a role in this resurgence, van Slooten emphasizes that it's not the only factor driving the shift. Meanwhile, despite the U.S. having a larger credit market, investors have recently shown a preference for European credit funds. van Slooten further noted that rising geopolitical tensions could mean that this shift away from U.S. assets is just It Matters: The shift away from U.S. assets has been observed for some time now. In March 2025, data showed that the European stock market outperformed, hence there was a flow of money out of the U.S. stock market and into Europe. This was seen as a period of 'transition,' as per President Donald Trump, with investors seeking opportunities in European markets. In April 2025, foreign investors dumped $6.5 billion worth of U.S. equities in a week, marking the second-largest amount on record. This was attributed to the turmoil in U.S. equity markets and tariff-related uncertainties. Read Next: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. Arrived Home's Private Credit Fund's has historically paid an annualized dividend yield of 8.1%*, which provides access to a pool of short-term loans backed by residential real estate with just a $100 minimum. Image via Shutterstock This article Wall Street Watches As Money Flows Out Of US Markets — Is The 'Great Rotation' Here? originally appeared on Sign in to access your portfolio
Gizmodo
2 hours ago
- Gizmodo
When Will Genetically Modifying Our Children Go Mainstream?
In late May, several scientific organizations, including the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), banded together to call for a 10-year moratorium on using CRISPR and related technologies to pursue human heritable germline editing. The declaration also outlined practical steps that countries and research institutions could take to discourage this sort of experimentation, such as strengthening regulations tied to gene editing. 'Germline editing has very serious safety concerns that could have irreversible consequences,' said Bruce Levine, a cancer gene therapy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and former president of the ISCT, in a statement. 'We simply lack the tools to make it safe now and for at least the next 10 years.' Newer technologies such as CRISPR have made gene editing easier, cheaper, and more practical to carry out in a variety of species, humans included. That reality has made heritable germline editing—altering egg, sperm, and embryos such that they can be passed down to offspring—more feasible than ever. In November 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui thrust this issue into the limelight when he announced that his team modified the genes of several human embryos using CRISPR, then implanted them successfully in women volunteers. Eventually three children were born with the modifications, intended to confer natural immunity to HIV infection. He deliberately flouted ethical guidelines and the law in his research, such as doctoring lab results so that HIV-positive men could father the children (according to He, the children were born without HIV and appeared to have avoided any related health issues). He's experiments were roundly condemned by the scientific community and he ultimately served a three-year prison term for his actions, which ended in 2022. Upon release, He went back to working in the gene-editing field, though he promised to abide by domestic and international rules. The episode showed that human heritable germline editing is already clearly possible today, but not necessarily ethical to carry out. Indeed, many scientists and bioethicists believe we're not ready to go down that path just yet. For this Giz Asks, we reached out to several bioethicists to get their take on the moratorium, and more broadly, on the question of when we should be able to genetically modify children, if ever. Founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine's Department of Population Health. I've been thinking about that question for well over 40 years. We didn't always have the technology to go in and modify genes in an egg, sperm, embryo, or fetus for that matter. But it's certainly the case that people have been thinking hard about trying to genetically alter and improve children, probably back to the Greeks. We know that in modern times, Nazi Germany was home to race hygiene theory and a form of eugenics; they would have been very interested in creating better babies. They did have the Lebensborn Program where they tried to force women and men that they deemed especially genetically fit to breed and have kids. It's not really clear whatever happened to those kids. But it's a form, if you will, of trying to get the right genes into your offspring and get them passed along into the future. They practiced that. And we had versions of that in the U.S., believe it or not. We actually had awards given at state fairs to families that were seen as eugenically the best and trying to encourage those families to have bigger families. That's an idea that's still rattling around today, by the way, in the mouths of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, etc. Many in the current Trump administration are very concerned about minorities becoming the majority in the U.S. In any event, these are old fashioned ideas, often fueled by dreams of eugenics, shifting the population in the future toward healthier, more competent, more physically able people, trying to get people of the right race or ethnicity so that the society's makeup is proper. They don't rely on engineering a gene. There's no CRISPR. There's nobody going in there and trying to penetrate the cell wall to insert genetic information. But those are just new ways to think about ideas that have been around for a long time. So if you ask me, will we see genetic engineering of children aimed at their improvement? I say yes, undoubtedly. Now when? I'm not sure what the answer to that is. Right now, we have some crude tools. We are seeing some efforts to use gene therapy in kids to repair diseases of their bodies, not things that would be inherited. They work a bit, but I wouldn't say we're really at the sort of utopia of being able to reliably get rid of in a person or a child, sickle cell or other major diseases. The tools, despite a lot of hype and a lot of maybe press release journalism, are not quite there yet to really say we can even do a good job repairing disease in an existing kid. So when it comes to trying to use tools to modify an embryo, I'm going to say flat out we're at least 10 years away from that in any serious way that could be considered safe, targeted, and likely to produce the outcome you want. So the big restriction now is safety. I think we'll get past safety, but it is a reason right now not to do anything. Now, what else might become an objection if we did have accurate, sophisticated tools? I think the first is access. If you make better kids, but only some people can afford it, that wouldn't be fair. And that in itself would be unjust. And you might wind up creating two classes or more of humans on Earth, the genetically engineered superior people and others. And this obviously is a theme all over science fiction. Old-timers will remember the Wrath of Khan from Star Trek for their take on what happens when you get a super genetically engineered race. There's Gattaca, another movie that explored this. But I'm going to say this somewhat controversially. Fairness in access never stopped a technology from going forward. When the rich and the middle class want it, they're not stopped by the fact that the poor can't get it. I would like to see provisions made to say we shouldn't move forward unless those technologies are available to those who want them regardless of cost. But I don't think that's going to happen. It's just never happened. So access is an issue, but I don't think it's a game-breaker for improving your kids. People also say, well, how will we improve? I mean, what's the best state? We can't agree on that. So will we really improve kids? There may be things we disagree about as to whether they're really improvements. Would it be an improvement to diminish pigment in black people? Try and make them less dark. We can certainly see that argued. There are plenty in the deaf community who say, well, deafness is not really something you have to get rid of or try to improve by genetically engineering hearing to make it better. They can get around the world deaf using a different language and different institutions. But there are clearly things that it would be nice to genetically improve in kids. Immunity would be great. We do it now with vaccines. It would be great to find the right genes, tweak them, and build stronger immune systems. It would be great to make sure that we try our best to diminish the extreme pain, that some of us suffer not just as disease, but with respect to certain stimuli. I'm not saying we should genetically eliminate all pain. That would probably put us in danger, but we don't quite have to suffer the way we do. My point being, the fact that we don't agree on everything as to what would be an improvement doesn't mean that we can't agree on anything. The last thing I'll say is this. When you try to make better kids, I think one last concern is: Are you going to make the children have less options rather than more? So if I considered it an improvement in a child to make them a giant, or to make them a tennis player, or to try and figure out perhaps some weird appearance that would make them a celebrity, I'm condemning the child to my choice. They don't have the freedom to run their own life. They don't have the ability to choose what they want to do. I tighten down their future by narrowing the kinds of traits they have. That, I think, is a legitimate objection. We have to think hard about that. Many of the things we do environmentally, learn to read better, learn to do exercise, learn to play games, these are skills that expand capacities in our children, and may in fact be values that are then passed on to future generations. But they don't wind up creating kids who are less capable because of those interventions. That's where genetic change has to be watched very closely. So the bottom line of this gigantic speech is yes, we will see genetic modification of our children. It will come. There are traits that people will eagerly try to put into their kids in the future. They will try to design out genetic diseases, get rid of them. They will try to build in capacities and abilities that they agree are really wonderful. Will we hang up these interventions on ethical grounds? For the most part, no, would be my prediction, But not within the next 10 years. The tools are still too crude. Associate professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine There are children with genetic modifications walking around today, children like KJ, who was treated with personalized CRISPR gene editing at just six months old. There are now kids who are free of sickle cell disease symptoms through CRISPR therapy, the first one ever approved by the FDA. All of these children are 'genetically modified,' and they and their parents couldn't be happier about it. What other conditions could and should be treated through genetic modifications? That's a question that scientists are actively working on, and that social scientists like me are talking about with patients, parents, and communities—because we and they think it's really important for them to be part of those decisions. These 'somatic' gene editing treatments that are already being used aren't the kind that is passed down through our reproductive cells, the germline. Heritable gene modification would involve embryos, eggs, or sperm, or even possibly other cells that could be turned into these kinds of cells. A technology currently being researched, called in vitro gametogenesis, could use gene editing to turn skin cells into reproductive cells, allowing families with infertility to have their own genetically related children. And of course, there are scientists looking at the possibility of editing reproductive cells to allow couples who carry the genes for severe diseases to conceive children without those conditions. Many ethicists and scientists have drawn a hard line between heritable and non-heritable gene editing, but in practice it's not nearly so clear-cut. Off-target effects of gene editing are difficult to predict or control, so there is a chance that reproductive cells could be changed by treatments aimed at other organ systems. Fetal gene editing, which could help babies with some conditions be born with few or no symptoms, will also involve the pregnant bodies of their mothers; those adults could host edited cells even after the pregnancy ends, possibly affecting their future children too. Families dealing with genetic conditions that cause great suffering for their children don't necessarily see a problem with eliminating those conditions forever with heritable gene editing. On the other hand, some people living with genetic conditions, such as deafness or autism, see no reason for treating their condition with gene editing, heritable or not, because their biggest problems come not from the condition itself but from the way society treats them. So there are many questions to be asked about all forms of genetic modification, and how they will be developed and implemented. All the gene editing treatments that exist now or are being imagined over the next decade, heritable or not, involve exorbitant cost and will be inaccessible to most people worldwide. It will be crucial to balance the excitement of these novel technologies with attention to questions of justice, developing new treatments with an eye toward both accessibility and the priorities of those most affected. The only way to do this is to bring more voices into conversation with one another: people living with genetic conditions, scientists and doctors, policymakers of all kinds, and members of the public. Although gene editing is an amazing tool to add to our kit, the work of building more robust healthcare and support for families carrying or living with genetic conditions doesn't begin or end with genetic modification. Bioethicist, sociologist, and executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Yes we should, when it's safe, effective, and voluntary. Calls to permanently ban the creation of genetically modified children often rest on fear, not facts. They mirror past moral panics over interracial marriage, in vitro fertilization, and birth control—all technologies or choices once deemed unnatural or dangerous, and now widely accepted. We should be wary of arguments dressed up as ethics but rooted in anxiety about change. That doesn't mean anything goes. Like any powerful technology, gene editing must be tightly regulated for safety and efficacy. But the agencies we already trust to regulate medicine—the FDA, NIH, and institutional review boards—are largely capable of doing that. We don't need a bioethics priesthood or a new bureaucracy to police reproductive decisions. We need science-based oversight, individual consent, and protection from coercion. One of the loudest objections to genetic editing is the specter of 'eugenics.' But if eugenics means state control over reproduction, then the lesson of the 20th century is to defend reproductive freedom, not curtail it. Governments should not tell parents what kinds of kids to have. Preventing parents from using safe, approved gene therapies to reduce suffering or enhance their children's lives is a strange way to honor that lesson. They should give parents access to all the information and technology for the choices they make. True reproductive liberty includes the right to use the best science available to ensure a child's health. Another objection is that genetic modification could harm people who would rather not participate. But this 'perfection anxiety' ignores how all medical advances shift social norms. We didn't stop improving dental care because it made bad teeth less acceptable. And a healthier society has not led to less compassion for those who remain sick or disabled—if anything, it's strengthened the case for inclusion and support. The goal should be equitable access, not frozen norms. We do need to ensure that parents can access all the gene therapies that actually provide potential benefits for children. Governments with universal healthcare will need to make tough choices about what to cover and what not to cover. For instance, the National Health Service should make gene therapy to remove lethal, painful conditions available for all Britons, but parents may need to pay for medical tourism to some offshore clinic if they want to tweak their embryo's eye color. What about risks we can't foresee? Of course there will be some. All new medical therapies come with uncertainties. That's why we have trials, regulation, and post-market surveillance. There's no reason genetic therapies should be held to an impossibly higher standard. We should start with animal models, and proceed to the most morally defensible gene tweaks, lethal and painful conditions. Over time, as the safety of the techniques are better understood, we can expand the scope of therapeutic choices. Some worry that genetically modified children could disrupt our ideas of family or humanity. But those concepts have already been revolutionized—by urbanization, feminism, economic precarity, and social movements. The family of today would be unrecognizable to most people in 1800. If genetic technologies change our values again, it won't be the first time. Liberal democracies don't freeze culture in place—they ensure people have the freedom to shape it. Ultimately, the question isn't whether we should allow genetically modified children. It's whether we trust parents to make mostly good choices under the oversight of regulators and doctors. We should, because most parents have their children's best interests in mind, as they perceive them. That's why we allow parents to raise their own children in the first place. And we should ensure those choices are equitably available to all, not outlawed out of fear. If we ever find genetic tweaks to reduce suffering, enhance capability, or prevent devastating disease—and we can do so safely and ethically—the real moral failure would be to prohibit it. A Canadian bioethicist and environmentalist currently teaching at the University of Toronto. Well, there's a big difference between genetic enhancement and treatment. And with enhancement, I think we're nowhere near a point where we should be even considering that. But with treatment, the large ethical issue right now is something like single gene mutation. So something like Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, or similar diseases, could it be justified to edit the gene for that? The challenge is we don't fully understand all the things. We don't know what we don't know, to put it bluntly. And with germline editing, the changes we would be making are permanent and they run through many generations ahead. So, yes, being able to prevent deadly or debilitating illnesses is absolutely something wonderful. But having said that, you obviously don't have consent of the person who will be born, but you also don't have consent of the generations that come after that. And if there is complications or unexpected problems, you can have an inheritance that just keeps running through generations. But here's the thing with this moratorium; to what end? You can call for a moratorium, but if no one's focusing on anything, if there's no research, no planning, no social discourse, there's just a lot of people with different opinions, and everything gets shelved for 10 years. I'm not sure that's going to be particularly useful. It sounds great if it's going to be 10 concentrated years on building consensus and public engagement and those types of things, but I don't think that's what would actually happen. And also, I'm sure you've noticed, the world's not in good shape, and Western culture is not of one mind these days. And with the ruptures, particularly in the United States, there's a lot of division in Western culture of how people see things. And I'm just not convinced that a moratorium, that people would make use of it in a constructive way. It really needs a coordinated plan, and I'm not sure there is one. So I do see that as quite a problem. The other thing is, we're dealing with high-income countries. So when we look at potential for CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing, we're dealing with a very small percentage of the world's population. I'm going to guess that it's maybe 15% to 20% of the world's population, because most of the population of the world has no access to things like this and never will. Not never will, but in the foreseeable future, they won't. And I think that's something we miss a lot of the time. And the biggest ethical problem in the world today is not gene editing. It's just access to healthcare. And this doesn't do anything in those domains whatsoever. So from a justice point of view, that is a concern. And I'm going to sound cynical here. Emerging medical technologies are not motivated largely by the social sector. They're motivated by marketing and market forces. So if people can make money on this, somehow, someway, people will proceed. And if gene editing is illegal in Canada and the U.S. and Western Europe and Australia, there's a lot of countries that don't fall into that. And you can set up shop anywhere. Equatorial Guinea or other places are not going to be worried about things like this. They've got enough problems on their hands. And there's a lot of countries out there where this would not be easily called. So I support the essence of it. And I can see why people want to do it. I'm just not convinced it's all that feasible. I think what makes more sense is just not having any germline editing until we have a larger consensus about this technology.
