ReviewBiotech (Basel (Switzerland))2021
Biosafety of Genome Editing Applications in Plant Breeding: Considerations for a Focused Case-Specific Risk Assessment in the EU.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Genome Editing for Plant Disease Resistance Breeding.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multi-omics profiling finds synbio milk differs nutritionally from bovine milk and contains 93 uncharacterized fungal metabolites and 236 fungal proteins.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Complexity Meets Risk-The Next Generation of Genome-Edited Plants Challenges Established Concepts for Environmental Risk Assessment in the EU.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Environmental Applications of GM Microorganisms: Tiny Critters Posing Huge Challenges for Risk Assessment and Governance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- From data to decisions: a paradigm shift in fruit agriculture through the integration of multi-omics, modern phenotyping, and cutting-edge bioinformatic tools.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- Where does the EU-path on new genomic techniques lead us?Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Article
- CRISPR Variants for Gene Editing in Plants: Biosafety Risks and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Guidelines for Performing CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing for Gene Validation and Trait Improvement in Crops.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Recommendations for the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects of Genome-Editing Applications in Plants in the EU.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Genome editing for healthy crops: traits, tools and impacts.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Contamination of imported kernels by unapproved genome-edited varieties poses a major challenge for monitoring and traceability during transport and handling on a global scale: inferences from a study on feral oilseed rape in Austria.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Article
- Genome Editing for Sustainable Crop Improvement and Mitigation of Biotic and Abiotic Stresses.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Genome Editing in Crop Plant Research-Alignment of Expectations and Current Developments.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Generic Risks and the Potential of SDN-1 Applications in Crop Plants.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Maize Transformation: From Plant Material to the Release of Genetically Modified and Edited Varieties.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.