

What’s not clear to me is whether these edits will be passed on to future generations of trees. I think that’s usually not the case with CRISPR, but this article is talking about “breeding”, so maybe it is the case here. The phrase “building a better forest” is particularly disturbing as well.
My concern here is basically that we don’t want to be replacing wild forests with genetically engineered monoculture. Replacing millions of years of evolution and biodiversity with 1 or 2 “optimal” genetic lines leaves the population vulnerable to things like disease and environmental changes. A diverse population is much more resilient against these dangers, since the differences in individuals may allow some to survive where others couldn’t.
So as long as the usage is limited to specific tree farms, it’s probably no worse than other modern agricultural practices. I just hope they don’t want to replace wild forests with CRISPR trees.
I think the raw oils are not that bad (maybe in quantity it becomes an issue). Coconut oil I know is saturated fat, so that can be bad for your heart.
I think the bigger issue is how they are used in processed food. Just about every processed food has “partially hydrogenated soybean oil” or something like that, which is basically the worst possible thing for cholesterol.
It’s the same with how everyone started using Crisco because lard was thought to be unhealthy. It turns out heavily processed vegetable oils are worse.