Deciphering argumentation on the regulation of genome‐edited crops in academic publications: A systematic review

Societal Impact Statement Genome editing technologies such as CRISPR‐Cas are reshaping debates about the future of agriculture, yet disagreement over how these crops should be regulated remains widespread. This study clarifies the range of arguments used in scientific discussions about genome‐edited crops, making underlying assumptions and value judgements more visible. By mapping and critically analysing this contested landscape, this research supports more transparent, inclusive and informed decision‐making. It is particularly relevant for policymakers, regulators and stakeholders navigating complex choices around innovation, safety and public trust. Ultimately, this work helps foster more balanced and deliberative governance of emerging plant breeding technologies in society. Summary • This study systematically examines the reasons advanced in the academic literature for and against regulatory oversight of gene‐edited crops (GEC) intended for cultivation and commercialisation. It aims to clarify how these reasons are framed, their underlying assumptions and their implications for regulatory debates. • A systematic review of reasons was conducted on 200 peer‐reviewed articles published between 2012 and 2025. Arguments were identified and categorised into technical, agronomic, socio‐economic, health, environmental, legal and ethical domains and their orientation (favourable or unfavourable) and frequency were analysed. • The literature shows a marked asymmetry, with most publications presenting exclusively favourable reasons for GEC, primarily based on technical characteristics and agronomic potential. Unfavourable reasons are less frequent but more specific and detailed. The critical analysis of favourable arguments also reveals recurring simplifications of technical aspects, unclear definitions of key concepts such as sustainability and food security and limited engagement with uncertainty and trade‐offs. Risks and ethical reasoning are comparatively marginal and often expressed indirectly. • The predominance of technical arguments and context‐dependent benefits may limit comprehensive policy assessment and constrain transparent regulatory deliberation. A more balanced evaluation that explicitly addresses uncertainties, trade‐offs and value‐based considerations could better support policymakers in assessing GEd technologies and ensuring societally legitimate outcomes at acceptable levels of risk.