Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36120531›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genome editing2022

Towards social acceptability of genome-edited plants in industrialised countries? Emerging evidence from Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

Armin Spök, Thorben Sprink, Andrew C Allan, Tomiko Yamaguchi, Christian Dayé

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genome editing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Genome Editing in Root and Tuber Crop Development in Sub-Saharan Africa.Plant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Biodiversity and genetic improvement ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. CRISPR/Cas as a Genome-Editing Technique in Fruit Tree Breeding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Armin SpökScience, Technology and Society Unit, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria.
Thorben SprinkInstitute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Julius Kühn-Institut, Federal Research Center for Cultivated Plants, Quedlinburg, Germany.
Andrew C AllanNew Cultivar Innovation, Plant & Food Research, Auckland, New Zealand.
Tomiko YamaguchiCollege of Liberal Arts, International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan.
Christian DayéScience, Technology and Society Unit, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria.
Graz University of Technology · ATInternational Christian University · JPJulius Kühn-Institut · DEPlant & Food Research · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The agricultural biotechnology world has been divided into two blocks; countries adopting GM crops for commercial cultivation (adopters) and others without any or without relevant cultivation of such crops (non-adopters). Meanwhile, an increasing number of adopter countries have exempted certain genome-edited (GE) crops from legal GMO pre-market approval and labelling requirements. Among them are major exporters of agricultural commodities such as United States, Canada, and Australia. Due to the relaxed legislation more GE plants are expected to enter the market soon. Many countries in the non-adopter group, however, depend on import of large volumes of agricultural commodities from adopter countries. Unlike first generation GM, certain GE crops cannot be identified as unambiguously originating from genome editing using available techniques. Consequently, pressure is mounting on non-adopter jurisdictions to reconsider their policies and legislations. Against this backdrop, the paper explores recent developments relevant for social acceptability in selected non-adopters, Japan, New Zealand, the EU, Norway, and Switzerland in contrast to United States, Canada, and Australia. While Japan is already opening-up and Norway and Switzerland are discussing revisions of their policies, the EU and New Zealand are struggling with challenges resulting from high court decisions. In an attempt to take a closer look into the inner dynamics of these developments, the concept of social acceptability proposed by Wüstenhagen et al. (Energy Policy, 2007, 35(5), 2683-2691) is employed. This aids the understanding of developments in the jurisdictions considered and identifies specific or cross-cutting challenges.

Indexed as

acceptabilitygene-editinggenome editingGMO legislationGMO policypolicy developmentpublic perceptionstakeholder

Identifiers

PMID36120531
PMCPMC9473316
OpenAlexW4293793014

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.