Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35822764›Full record

ReviewBiotech (Basel (Switzerland))2021

Biosafety of Genome Editing Applications in Plant Breeding: Considerations for a Focused Case-Specific Risk Assessment in the EU.

Michael F Eckerstorfer, Marcin Grabowski, Matteo Lener, Margret Engelhard, Samson Simon, Marion Dolezel, Andreas Heissenberger, Christoph Lüthi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Michael F EckerstorferUmweltbundesamt-Environment Agency Austria (EAA), Landuse & Biosafety Unit, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6827-904X
Marcin GrabowskiMinistry of Climate and Environment, Department Nature Conservation, GMO Unit, Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warszawa, Poland.
Matteo LenerISPRA (Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research), Department for Environmental Monitoring and Protection and for Biodiversity Conservation, Via Vitaliano Brancati, 48, 00144 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3778-2491
Margret EngelhardFederal Agency for Nature Conservation, Division of Assessment of GMOs/Enforcement of Genetic Engineering Act, Konstantinstr. 110, 53179 Bonn, Germany.
Samson SimonFederal Agency for Nature Conservation, Division of Assessment of GMOs/Enforcement of Genetic Engineering Act, Konstantinstr. 110, 53179 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6102-444X
Marion DolezelUmweltbundesamt-Environment Agency Austria (EAA), Landuse & Biosafety Unit, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Andreas HeissenbergerUmweltbundesamt-Environment Agency Austria (EAA), Landuse & Biosafety Unit, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Christoph LüthiFederal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Biotechnology Section, Soil and Biotechnology Division, BAFU, CH-3003 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3228-7424

Funding

Bundesamt für Umwelt 110011894/8T10/00.5005.PZ/0027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An intensely debated question is whether or how a mandatory environmental risk assessment (ERA) should be conducted for plants obtained through novel genomic techniques, including genome editing (GE). Some countries have already exempted certain types of GE applications from their regulations addressing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the European Union, the European Court of Justice confirmed in 2018 that plants developed by novel genomic techniques for directed mutagenesis are regulated as GMOs. Thus, they have to undergo an ERA prior to deliberate release or being placed on the market. Recently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published two opinions on the relevance of the current EU ERA framework for GM plants obtained through novel genomic techniques (NGTs). Regarding GE plants, the opinions confirmed that the existing ERA framework is suitable in general and that the current ERA requirements need to be applied in a case specific manner. Since EFSA did not provide further guidance, this review addresses a couple of issues relevant for the case-specific assessment of GE plants. We discuss the suitability of general denominators of risk/safety and address characteristics of GE plants which require particular assessment approaches. We suggest integrating the following two sets of considerations into the ERA: considerations related to the traits developed by GE and considerations addressing the assessment of method-related unintended effects, e.g., due to off-target modifications. In conclusion, we recommend that further specific guidance for the ERA and monitoring should be developed to facilitate a focused assessment approach for GE plants.

Indexed as

biosafety regulationCRISPR/Casenvironmental risk assessmentgenome editingGMOnovel genomic techniquesplant modification

Identifiers

PMID35822764
PMCPMC9245463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.