ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2019
Roads Forward for European GMO Policy-Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plant resistance: scientific basis and latest research progress.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- 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
- Rootstock Breeding of Stone Fruits Under Modern Cultivation Regime: Current Status and Perspectives.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- The applicability of the European GMO legislation to epigenetically modified organisms.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Improving abiotic stress tolerance of forage grasses - prospects of using genome editing.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- An Outlook on Global Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Crops.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Regulatory approaches for genome edited agricultural plants in select countries and jurisdictions around the world.Transgenic research · 2021Review
- Global Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops Amid the Gene Edited Crop Boom - A Review.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
- Familiarity in the Context of Risk Assessment of Transgenic Crops: Focus on Some Countries in the Americas.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article gives an overview of legal and procedural uncertainties regarding genome edited organisms and possible ways forward for European GMO policy. After a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ judgment of 25 July 2018, C-528/16), organisms obtained by techniques of genome editing are GMOs and subject to the same obligations as transgenic organisms. Uncertainties emerge if genome edited organisms cannot be distinguished from organisms bred by conventional techniques, such as crossing or random mutagenesis. In this case, identical organisms can be subject to either GMO law or exempt from regulation because of the use of a technique that cannot be identified. Regulatory agencies might not be able to enforce GMO law for such cases in the long term. As other jurisdictions do not regulate such organisms as GMOs, accidental imports might occur and undermine European GMO regulation. In the near future, the EU Commission as well as European and national regulatory agencies will decide on how to apply the updated interpretation of the law. In order to mitigate current legal and procedural uncertainties, a first step forward lies in updating all guidance documents to specifically address genome editing specifically address genome editing, including a solution for providing a unique identifier. In part, the authorization procedure for GMO release can be tailored to different types of organisms by making use of existing flexibilities in GMO law. However, only an amendment to the regulations that govern the process of authorization for GMO release can substantially lower the burden for innovators. In a second step, any way forward has to aim at amending, supplementing or replacing the European GMO Directive (2001/18/EC). The policy options presented in this article presuppose political readiness for reform. This may not be realistic in the current political situation. However, if the problems of current GMO law are just ignored, European competitiveness and research in green biotechnology will suffer.
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.