ArticleGM crops & food2017
Canadian regulatory perspectives on genome engineered crops.
Article in GM crops & food, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome editing for vegetable crop improvement: Challenges and future prospects.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Synergizing CRISPR-Cas9 with Advanced Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Precision Drug Delivery: Technological Nexus and Regulatory Insights.Current gene therapy · 2025Review
- Crop bioengineering via gene editing: reshaping the future of agriculture.Plant cell reports · 2024Review
- Processes for regulating genetically modified and gene edited plants.GM crops & food · 2023Review
- 3Bs of CRISPR-Cas mediated genome editing in plants: exploring the basics, bioinformatics and biosafety landscape.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2023Review
- Recommendations for the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects of Genome-Editing Applications in Plants in the EU.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- From Transgenesis to Genome Editing in Crop Improvement: Applications, Marketing, and Legal Issues.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Pastoral agriculture, a significant driver of New Zealand's economy, based on an introduced grassland ecology and technological advances.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2023Review
- CRISPR technology towards genome editing of the perennial and semi-perennial crops citrus, coffee and sugarcane.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- GMOs or non-GMOs? The CRISPR Conundrum.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Genetically modified organisms: adapting regulatory frameworks for evolving genome editing technologies.Biological research · 2022Review
- CRISPR for accelerating genetic gains in under-utilized crops of the drylands: Progress and prospects.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Genome Editing for Sustainable Agriculture in Africa.Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Review
- Development and Adoption of Genetically Engineered Plants for Virus Resistance: Advances, Opportunities and Challenges.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- An Outlook on Global Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Crops.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Biotechnological Importance ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- CRISPR/Cas systems: opportunities and challenges for crop breeding.Plant cell reports · 2021Review
- Genetically modified crop regulations: scope and opportunity using the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing approach.Molecular biology reports · 2021Review
- Advanced domestication: harnessing the precision of gene editing in crop breeding.Plant biotechnology journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New breeding techniques in plant agriculture exploded upon the scene about two years ago, in 2014. While these innovative plant breeding techniques, soon to be led by CRISPR/Cas9, initially appear to hold tremendous promise for plant breeding, if not a revolution for the industry, the question of how the products of these technologies will be regulated is rapidly becoming a key aspect of the technology's future potential. Regulation of innovative technologies and products has always lagged that of the science, but in the past decade, regulatory systems in many jurisdictions have become gridlocked as they try to regulate genetically modified (GM) crops. This regulatory incapability to efficiently assess and approve innovative new agricultural products is particularly important for new plant breeding techniques as if these techniques are classified as genetically modified breeding techniques, then their acceptance and future will diminish considerably as they will be rejected by the European Union. Conversely, if the techniques are accepted as conventional plant breeding, then the future is blindingly bright. This article examines the international debate about the regulation of new plant breeding techniques and then assesses how the Canadian regulatory system has approached the regulation of these technologies through two more public product approvals, GM apples and GM potatoes, then discusses other crop variety approval and those in the regulatory pipeline.
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.