ArticleGM crops & food2015
Recommendations from the workshop on Comparative Approaches to Safety Assessment of GM Plant Materials: A road toward harmonized criteria?
Article in GM crops & food, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capacities for the Risk Assessment of GMOs: Challenges to Build Sustainable Systems.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2018Article
- Development of a construct-based risk assessment framework for genetic engineered crops.Transgenic research · 2016Review
- Use of designer nucleases for targeted gene and genome editing in plants.Plant biotechnology journal · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An international meeting of genetically modified (GM) food safety assessors from the main importing and exporting countries from Asia and the Americas was held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, between June 26(th) and 28(th), 2013. Participants shared their evaluation approaches, identified similarities and challenges, and used their experience to propose areas for future work. Recommendations for improving risk assessment procedures and avenues for future collaboration were also discussed. The deliberations of the meeting were also supported by a survey of participants which canvassed risk assessment approaches across the regions from which participants came. This project was initiated by Argentine Agri-Food Health and Quality National Service (SENASA, Ministry of Agriculture, Argentina), with the support of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) and other partner institutions. The importance of making all possible efforts toward more integrated and harmonized regulatory oversight for GM organisms (GMOs) was strongly emphasized. This exercise showed that such harmonization is a feasible goal that would contribute to sustain a fluid trade of commodities and ultimately enhance food security. Before this can be achieved, key issues identified in this meeting will have to be addressed in the near future to enable regulatory collaboration or joint work. The authors propose that the recommendations coming out of the meeting should be used as a basis for continuing work, follow up discussions and concrete actions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.