ArticlePest management science2019
Maximum vs minimum harmonization: what to expect from the institutional and legal battles in the EU on gene editing technologies.
Article in Pest management science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Options for regulating new genomic techniques for plants in the European Union.Nature plants · 2023Review
- PossibleFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Reaping the Benefits of Microorganisms in Cropping Systems: Is the Regulatory Policy Adequate?Microorganisms · 2021Review
- Why has the authorization of microbial biological control agents been slower in the EU than in comparable jurisdictions?Pest management science · 2021Article
- Potential, Challenges, and Threats for the Application of New Breeding Techniques by the Private Plant Breeding Sector in the EU.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- The Economics of Regulating New Plant Breeding Technologies - Implications for the Bioeconomy Illustrated by a Survey Among Dutch Plant Breeders.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
New plant-breeding technologies (NPBTs), including gene editing, are widely used and drive the development of new crops. However, these new technologies are disputed, creating uncertainty in how their application for agricultural and food uses will be regulated. While in North America regulatory systems respond with a differentiated approach to NPBTs, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) has in effect made most if not all NPBT subject to the same regulatory regime as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This paper discusses from a law and economics point of view different options that are available for the EU's multi-level legal order. Using an ex-ante regulation versus ex-post liability framework allows the economic implications of different options to be addressed. The results show that under current conditions, some options are more expensive than others. The least costly option encompasses regulating new crops derived from NPBTs similar to those used in 'conventional' breeding. The current regulatory situation in the EU, namely making the use of NPBTs subject to the same conditions as GMOs, is the most costly option. © 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
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.