ReviewPlant biotechnology journal2017
Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food/feed.
Review in Plant biotechnology journal, 2017. 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.
- Genetically modified foods and human health: a comprehensive review and cross-national time-trend analysis.GM crops & food · 2026Review
- Towards the Integrated Management ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Lessons learned from the introduction of genetically engineered crops: relevance to gene drive deployment in Africa.Transgenic research · 2022Review
- Labeling of Genetically Modified (GM) Foods in Peru: Current Dogma and Insights of the Regulatory and Legal Statutes.International journal of food science · 2022Review
- Flawed scientific studies block progress and sow confusion.GM crops & food · 2020Article
- Problem formulation for gene drive mosquitoes designed to reduce malaria transmission in Africa: results from four regional consultations 2016-2018.Malaria journal · 2019Article
- On zombie papers.Cell death & disease · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the effects of feeding glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (CP4 EPSPS) on the testis of male Sprague-Dawley rats.GM crops & food · 2019Article
- Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5B protein as a new pan-hookworm cure.International journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance · 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
GM crops are the most studied crops in history. Approximately 5% of the safety studies on them show adverse effects that are a cause for concern and tend to be featured in media reports. Although these reports are based on just a handful of GM events, they are used to cast doubt on all GM crops. Furthermore, they tend to come from just a few laboratories and are published in less important journals. Importantly, a close examination of these reports invariably shows methodological flaws that invalidate any conclusions of adverse effects. Twenty years after commercial cultivation of GM crops began, a bona fide report of an adverse health effect due to a commercialized modification in a crop has yet to be reported.
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.