ArticleEnvironmental sciences Europe2018
European Court of Justice ruling regarding new genetic engineering methods scientifically justified: a commentary on the biased reporting about the recent ruling.
Article in Environmental sciences Europe, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- RiSpy: a feature selection-based fingerprinting framework for accurate identification of genome-edited rice lines.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Genome-Edited Fish in the Field.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- To patent or not to patent: challenges and solutions to the patent ban on new genomic techniques plant in EU.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- Preventive Immunology for Livestock and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases in the One Health Era: From Mechanistic Insights to Innovative Interventions.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Molecular Paleontology Meets Drug Discovery: The Case for De-extinct Antimicrobials.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Candidate Genes, Markers, Signatures of Selection, and Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) and Their Association with Economic Traits in Livestock: Genomic Insights and Selection.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
- The genetic technologies questionnaire in the Greek-speaking population: the moral judgement of the lay public.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- Contamination of imported kernels by unapproved genome-edited varieties poses a major challenge for monitoring and traceability during transport and handling on a global scale: inferences from a study on feral oilseed rape in Austria.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Article
- New Hope for Genome Editing in Cultivated Grasses: CRISPR Variants and Application.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- The Judgment of the CJEU of 25 July 2018 on Mutagenesis: Interpretation and Interim Legislative Proposal.Frontiers in plant science · 2019Article
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
In July 2018, the European Court of Justice (Case C-528/16) ruled that organisms obtained by directed mutagenesis techniques are to be regarded as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the meaning of Directive 2001/18. The ruling marked the next round of the dispute around agricultural genetic engineering in Europe. Many of the pros and cons presented in this dispute are familiar from the debate around the first generation of genetic engineering techniques. The current wave of enthusiasm for the new genetic engineering methods, with its claim to make good on the failed promises of the previous wave, seems to point more to an admission of failure of the last generation of genetic engineering than to a true change of paradigm. Regulation is being portrayed as a ban on research and use, which is factually incorrect, and the judges of the European Court of Justice are being defamed as espousing "pseudoscience". Furthermore, this highly polarised position dominates the media reporting of the new techniques and the court's ruling. Advocates of the new genetic engineering techniques appear to believe that their benefits are so clear that furnishing reliable scientific evidence is unnecessary. Meanwhile, critics who believe that the institution of science is in a serious crisis are on the increase not just due to the cases of obvious documented scientific misconduct by companies and scientists, but also due to the approach of dividing the world into those categorically for or against genetic engineering. In this construct of irreconcilable opposites, differentiations fall by the wayside. This article is a response to this one-sided and biased reporting, which often has the appearance of spin and lacks journalistic ethics that require journalists to report on different positions in a balanced and factual manner instead of taking positions and becoming undeclared advocates themselves.
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.