ArticleGM crops & food2015
A new window of opportunity to reject process-based biotechnology regulation.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking gene-edited crop regulation: advancing a Principle-based framework for modern biotechnology governance.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- Processes for regulating genetically modified and gene edited plants.GM crops & food · 2023Review
- Seizing the policy moment in crop biotech regulation: an interdisciplinary response to the Executive Order on biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Global Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops Amid the Gene Edited Crop Boom - A Review.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
- Genetic modification in Malaysia and India: current regulatory framework and the special case of non-transformative RNAi in agriculture.Plant cell reports · 2019Review
- Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing.Food and energy security · 2019Review
- Optimizing the Use of Zebrafish Feeding Trials for the Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Crops.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- The evolving EU regulatory framework for precision breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2019Article
- Regulatory Uncertainty Around New Breeding Techniques.Frontiers in plant science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The question of whether biotechnology regulation should be based on the process or the product has long been debated, with different jurisdictions adopting different approaches. The European Union has adopted a process-based approach, Canada has adopted a product-based approach, and the United States has implemented a hybrid system. With the recent proliferation of new methods of genetic modification, such as gene editing, process-based regulatory systems, which are premised on a binary system of transgenic and conventional approaches, will become increasingly obsolete and unsustainable. To avoid unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary results, nations that have adopted process-based approaches will need to migrate to a product-based approach that considers the novelty and risks of the individual trait, rather than the process by which that trait was produced. This commentary suggests some approaches for the design of such a product-based approach.
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.