Is Gene Editing Really Different From Genetic Modification?

The UK was one of the first countries to set its face against 'Frankenstein Foods'. This was the alliteratively catchy, but inappropriate (Frankenstein was the Doctor, not the monster, in Mary Shelley's story) name given to food organisms derived by 'Genetic Manipulation' (GM). Some groups campaigned vigously against food plants and animals, changed by having genes from another organism inserted into their DNA. There was, however, general acceptance of the same being done for medical reasons (e.g. the use of GM to produce human insulin or human growth hormone). The objections to GM foods included its being 'unnatural', there being human health issues (highly unlikely) and a perceived danger of such organisms escaping into the environment (and, perhaps, producing 'super-weeds', resistant to all herbicides). GM enabled scientists to generate organisms that produced vitamins (e.g. 'golden rice'), were resistant to herbicides/insecticides, would grow in saltier environments, lasted better in refrigerators et cetera, et cetera. Eventually, the EU made a blanket ban of all GM foods. It is now reported that, post Brexit, the UK government is consulting on using Gene Editing (where the genes within an organism are manipulated using CRISPR) to produce animals and plants that would be advantageous in 'English' (they have limited control over what can be done in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) agriculture (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jan/07/gene-editing-of-crops-and-livestock-may-soon-be-permitted-in-england). Gene editing is a bit like rewriting the DNA of the organism. The argument seems to be that gene editing, as it occurs in the organism itself, is little different (albeit dramatically faster), than the kind of changes that might be encouraged by 'old-fashioned' selective breeding. Selective breeding was the technology, used for centuries, to produce new crops, domesticated animals with particular traits and all the varieties of breeds of dogs. I think this distinction is something of an over-simplification. Genes rarely 'belong' to a single organism (e.g. humans share 30% of the genes that yeast have. Are these 'human genes' or 'yeast genes'?). What GM technology did was, to take a gene from an organism, where it was known to produce a particular protein having desirable effects. This was then inserted, using a bacterium 'carrier' into the DNA of the animal or plant where that characteristic was thought to be beneficial. It's a bit like editing a page of writing. You can change the meaning of the text by making relatively large inserts (like GM) or by adding, removing or turning round particular letters (Gene Editing). In either case, the organism is changed. If the UK government is to go down this route, it might as well accept GM organisms as food substances in addition to the 'new' products of gene editing. They should remember also, that pollen doesn't recognise national boundaries, so it would be impossible to restrict GM and gene edited organisms only to England.