ReviewNPJ science of food2019
Proposed U.S. regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose.
Review in NPJ science of food, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Avenues of genome editing for color trait improvement in ornamental fishes: current status and future perspectives.Transgenic research · 2025Review
- CRISPR/Cas9-based programmable genome editing in chickens: concepts, applications and regulatory issues.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- An overview of recent technological developments in bovine genomics.Veterinary and animal science · 2024Review
- Overcoming Obstacles to Gene-Edited Solutions to Climate Challenges.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024Review
- Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Holistic Approach for Ethics and Sustainability in the Food Chain: The Gateway to Oral and Systemic Health.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Generation of double knockout cattle via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) electroporation.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Towards progressive regulatory approaches for agricultural applications of animal biotechnology.Transgenic research · 2022Review
- One-step generation of a targeted knock-in calf using the CRISPR-Cas9 system in bovine zygotes.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- Comparison of Gene Editing Versus Conventional Breeding to Introgress theFrontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Evaluation of mutation rates, mosaicism and off target mutations when injecting Cas9 mRNA or protein for genome editing of bovine embryos.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Exploring Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Genetically Edited Food Among Youth in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Practical Approaches for Knock-Out Gene Editing in Pigs.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dietary DNA is generally regarded as safe to consume, and is a routine ingredient of food obtained from any living organism. Millions of naturally-occurring DNA variations are observed when comparing the genomic sequence of any two healthy individuals of a given species. Breeders routinely select desired traits resulting from this DNA variation to develop new cultivars and varieties of food plants and animals. Regulatory agencies do not evaluate these new varieties prior to commercial release. Gene editing tools now allow plant and animal breeders to precisely introduce useful genetic variation into agricultural breeding programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it has no plans to place additional regulations on gene-edited plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding prior to commercialization. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed mandatory premarket new animal drug regulatory evaluation for all food animals whose genomes have been intentionally altered using modern molecular technologies including gene editing technologies. This runs counter to U.S. biotechnology policy that regulatory oversight should be triggered by unreasonable risk, and not by the fact that an organism has been modified by a particular process or technique. Breeder intention is not associated with product risk. Harmonizing the regulations associated with gene editing in food species is imperative to allow both plant and animal breeders access to gene editing tools to introduce useful sustainability traits like disease resistance, climate adaptability, and food quality attributes into U.S. agricultural breeding programs.
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.