ArticleTransgenic research2019
Benefits of genome-edited crops: expert opinion.
Article in Transgenic research, 2019. 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.
- Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding: a systematic literature review.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2023Pooled it
- Drivers of farmers' intentions to adopt genome-edited cassava resistant to cassava brown streak disease in Uganda.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- Unlocking the future of crop improvement with crop wild relatives.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Review
- Wheat Biofortification for Enhancing Iron, Zinc, and Protein: The Role of Mutation Breeding.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Genome editing and food safety: bridging the validation gap.NPJ science of food · 2026Review
- From Blog to lab: testing messages to shift public opinion on gene editing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Genome editing in maize and sorghum: A comprehensive review of CRISPR/Cas9 and emerging technologies.The plant genome · 2025Review
- The decision to purchase genome edited food products by Iranian consumers: theory of planned behavior as a social intervention tool.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Article
- Growing knowledge impact of gene-editing technology on public acceptance: a longitudinal analysis in Japan.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- The recent genetic modification techniques for improve soil conservation, nutrient uptake and utilization.GM crops & food · 2024Review
- HarnessingFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Providing appropriate information to consumers boosts the acceptability of genome-edited foods in Japan.GM crops & food · 2023Article
- Costa Rican consumer perceptions of gene-editing.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Review
- Genome editing in maize: Toward improving complex traits in a global crop.Genetics and molecular biology · 2023Article
- Public perception of plant gene technologies worldwide in the light of food security.GM crops & food · 2022Article
- Genome Editing for Sustainable Crop Improvement and Mitigation of Biotic and Abiotic Stresses.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- CRISPR-Cas technology a new era in genomic engineering.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Review
- Genome Engineering Technology for Durable Disease Resistance: Recent Progress and Future Outlooks for Sustainable Agriculture.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- Data challenges for future plant gene editing: expert opinion.Transgenic research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Innovation in agriculture is pervasive. However, in spite of the success stories of twentieth century plant breeding, the twenty-first century has ushered in a set of challenges that solutions from the past century are unlikely to address. However, sustained research and the amalgamation of a number of disciplines has resulted in new breeding techniques (NBTs), such as genome editing, which offer the promise of new opportunities to resolve some of the issues. Here we present the results of an expert survey on the added potential benefits of genome-edited crops compared to those developed through genetic modification (GM) and conventional breeding. Overall, survey results reveal a consensus among experts on the enhanced agronomic performance and product quality of genome-edited crops over alternatives. The majority of experts indicated that the regulations for health and safety, followed by export markets, consumers, and the media play a major role in determining where and how NBTs, including genome editing, will be developed and used in agriculture. Further research is needed to gauge expert opinion after the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling establishing that site-specific mutagenic breeding technologies are to be regulated in the same fashion as GM crops, regardless of whether foreign DNA is present in the final variety.
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.