Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28255668›Full record

ArticleLife sciences, society and policy2017

Product, not process! Explaining a basic concept in agricultural biotechnologies and food safety.

Giovanni Tagliabue

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life sciences, society and policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Scientific mistakes from the agri-food biotech critics.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Giovanni TagliabueIndependent researcher, Carugo, Como, Italy. giovanni.tagliabue@uniedi.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7115-0936
Nuovo Ospedale San Giovanni di Dio · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most life scientists have relentlessly recommended any evaluative approach of agri-food products to be based on examination of the phenotype, i.e. the actual characteristics of the food, feed and fiber varieties: the effects of any new cultivar (or micro-organism, animal) on our health are not dependent on the process(es), the techniques used to obtain it.The so-called "genetically modified organisms" ("GMOs"), on the other hand, are commonly framed as a group with special properties - most frequently seen as dubious, or even harmful.Some social scientists still believe that considering the process is a correct background for science-based understanding and regulation. To show that such an approach is utterly wrong, and to invite scientists, teachers and science communicators to explain this mistake to students, policy-makers and the public at large, we imagined a dialogue between a social scientist, who has a positive opinion about a certain weight that a process-based orientation should have in the risk assessment, and a few experts who offer plenty of arguments against that view. The discussion focuses on new food safety.

Indexed as

AgricultureBiotechnologyFood, Genetically ModifiedFood SafetyAnimalsConsumer Product SafetyFoodHumansPlants, Genetically ModifiedRisk AssessmentAgricultural biotechnologiesFood safetyGMO

Identifiers

PMID28255668
PMCPMC5334331
OpenAlexW2592294465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.