ArticlePlant cell reports2016
Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing.
Article in Plant cell reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic synthesis of CRISPR/Cas applications for enhancing salt tolerance in crops: a decade of progress and challenges.BMC plant biology · 2026Pooled it
- Ecology and evolutionary dynamics of the A-strain maize streak virus and the decade-long strategies targeting streak-resistant maize.Virus research · 2026Review
- RNAi: the next wave of green agriculture, challenges, and bridging the translational gap.Plant cell reports · 2026Review
- Wheat Biofortification for Enhancing Iron, Zinc, and Protein: The Role of Mutation Breeding.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Foliar and root absorption of LDH nanosheets loaded with dsRNAs efficiently silenced the expression of whitefly Bemisia tabaci Laccase 1 and Vitellogenin Receptor genes for their effective control.Biotechnology letters · 2026Article
- Psychological and sociodemographic contexts of attitudes towards new genomic techniques (NGT) foods and products in Poland.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- BioCNTs Mediated Delivery of Systemically Mobile Small RNAs via Leaf Spray to Control Both Tomato DNA and RNA Viruses.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Next-generation fermented foods: engineering the future of functional nutrition and emerging food safety challenges.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Creating an Improved Diatoxanthin Production Line by Knocking OutMarine drugs · 2025Article
- The future of the future foods: understandings from the past towards SDG-2.NPJ science of food · 2025Review
- Regulation as key to fulfilling the promises of agricultural genomics: Going beyond bottlenecks in plant gene technology development.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Review
- Engineering Saccharomyces cerevisiae for medical applications.Microbial cell factories · 2025Review
- Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Consumers' response to genetically modified food: an Italian case study.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- Advancements in Plant Gene Editing Technology: From Construct Design to Enhanced Transformation Efficiency.Biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Combat phytopathogenic bacteria employing Argirium-SUNCs: limits and perspectives.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Review
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
One of the major problems regarding consumer acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is the possibility that their transgenes could have adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. Genome editing, represented by the CRISPR/Cas9 system, can efficiently achieve transgene-free gene modifications and is anticipated to generate a wide spectrum of plants. However, the public attitude against GMOs suggests that people will initially be unlikely to accept these plants. We herein explored the bottlenecks of consumer acceptance of transgene-free food crops developed by genome editing and made some recommendations. People should not pursue a zero-risk bias regarding such crops. Developers are encouraged to produce cultivars with a trait that would satisfy consumer needs. Moreover, they should carefully investigate off-target mutations in resultant plants and initially refrain from agricultural use of multiplex genome editing for better risk-benefit communication. The government must consider their regulatory status and establish appropriate regulations if necessary. The government also should foster communication between the public and developers. If people are informed of the benefits of genome editing-mediated plant breeding and trust in the relevant regulations, and if careful risk-benefit communication and sincere considerations for the right to know approach are guaranteed, then such transgene-free crops could gradually be integrated into society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27038939What 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.