ReviewFood and energy security2019
Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing.
Review in Food and energy security, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- From lab to market: industrialization barriers and regulation optimization for new breeding technologies in China.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- Screening method for detection of genetically modified soybean and maize events using multiplex PCR combined with capillary electrophoresis.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- Omega-3 LC-PUFA consumption is now recommended for women of childbearing age and during pregnancy to protect against preterm and early preterm birth: implementing this recommendation in a sustainable manner.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Review
- A comparative analysis of attitudes toward genome-edited food among Japanese public and scientific community.PloS one · 2024Article
- Biosafety regulatory frameworks in Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and Sweden and their potential impact on international R&D collaborations.GM crops & food · 2023Article
- Review
- Monitoring Insect Resistance to Bt Maize in the European Union: Update, Challenges, and Future Prospects.Journal of economic entomology · 2023Article
- Enabling Trade in Gene-Edited Produce in Asia and Australasia: The Developing Regulatory Landscape and Future Perspectives.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Regulation of Molecular Farming Products.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Governing biotechnology to provide safety and security and address ethical, legal, and social implications.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Enabling Genome Editing for Enhanced Agricultural Sustainability.Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Article
- Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 as an Advanced Genome Editing System in Life Sciences.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021Review
- Impact of CRISPR-Cas9-Based Genome Engineering in Farm Animals.Veterinary sciences · 2021Review
- Metabolomics for Biomarker Discovery: Key Signatory Metabolic Profiles for the Identification and Discrimination of Oat Cultivars.Metabolites · 2021Article
- Global Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops Amid the Gene Edited Crop Boom - A Review.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
- Comparison of Gene Editing Versus Conventional Breeding to Introgress theFrontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing.Food and energy security · 2019Review
- Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Feed: Is There Any Difference From Food?Frontiers in plant science · 2019Review
- Comparison of CRISPR Sequences in Archaea and Bacteria with Eukaryotic microRNAs.Avicenna journal of medical biotechnologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New plant breeding technologies, such as genome editing, are enabling new crop varieties to be developed far quicker and with greater precision and scope than achievable using conventional methods. These advances could help farmers address the challenges of climate change, sustainability, and global food security. However, despite their potential, the uptake of these new technologies has been slowed down due to the uncertainty associated with the regulation of genome edited crops. For many European consumers, their view of new breeding technologies is influenced by many factors. Those who have never faced a major food crisis may not sufficiently appreciate the challenges posed by a projected rise of 2 billion in the human population by 2050. In addition, consumers with a regular and plentiful supply of food may not have to consider how their food is produced, or appreciate the challenges EU farmers are already facing to meet future demand. Misleading online articles, questioning the safety and ethics of these "new" biotech foods, can also lead consumers to be reluctant to accept them. Consequently, Europe's mixed view on biotech crops may also be hindering their adoption in countries who have even more to gain from the technology. In this review, we discuss the current data on global and EU GM crop adoption and the potential impact a new wave of crop development may have for agriculture. We reflect on how the EU has viewed GM crops, and we consider the future of both genetic modification (GM) and genome editing (GE) in the EU. We explore lessons learnt from the adoption of GM crops and examine the potential impact the recent decision not to exempt genome edited crops from the EU GMO Directive, will have on EU farmers, scientists, consumers, trading countries, and the rest of the world.
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.