ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2022
Criteria for risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2022. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Market introduction of plant varieties and products with gene-edited traits.GM crops & food · 2026Review
- Literature horizon scan for new scientific data on plants, microorganisms and animals, and their products obtained by new genomic techniques (March 2026).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- Literature horizon scan for new scientific data on plants, microorganisms and animals, and their products obtained by new genomic techniques (October 2025).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- Transforming viticulture through genomic innovation and integrated pest management for sustainable grape production.NPJ science of plants · 2026Review
- The Potential of NGTs to Overcome Constraints in Plant Breeding and Their Regulatory Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Proposed EU NGT legislation in light of plant genetic variation.Plant biotechnology journal · 2025Review
- New developments in biotechnology applied to animals: An assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of current EFSA guidance for animal risk assessment.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Recent developments, challenges and opportunities in genome editing for crop science from a societal perspective.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Genomic Analysis Highlights Putative Defective Susceptibility Genes in Tomato Germplasm.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Recommendations for the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects of Genome-Editing Applications in Plants in the EU.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- From Transgenesis to Genome Editing in Crop Improvement: Applications, Marketing, and Legal Issues.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- A perspective from the EU: unintended genetic changes in plants caused by NGT-their relevance for a comprehensive molecular characterisation and risk assessment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- PossibleFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Improving abiotic stress tolerance of forage grasses - prospects of using genome editing.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Criteria for risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
EFSA was asked by the european Commission to develop criteria as advice for consideration for the risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA proposes in this statement six main criteria to assist the risk assessment of these plants. The first four criteria are related to the molecular characterisation of the genetic modification introduced in the recipient plant. The four criteria evaluate whether any exogenous DNA sequence(s) is/are present (Criterion 1), whether such sequence derives from the breeders' gene pool (Criterion 2), the type of integration (Criterion 3) and whether any endogenous plant gene is interrupted (Criterion 4). Depending on the evaluation of the above criteria, the product can be a genome edited plant where no exogenous DNA sequence is present, or a cisgenic or intragenic plant where the cisgenic and intragenic sequence are introduced by targeted insertion and no plant endogenous genes are interrupted. In these cases, two more criteria are assessed to evaluate the history of safe use (Criterion 5) and the structure and function of the new allele (Criterion 6). If cisgenic and intragenic sequence are introduced by random integration without interruption of an endogenous gene, or when no risk is identified when an endogenous gene is interrupted, the criteria 5 and 6 will also be assessed. Evaluating the history of safe use is an important part of the proportionate risk assessment of cisgenic, intragenic and genome-edited plants since the newly introduced allele may already be present in nature. However, when the history of safe use cannot be sufficiently demonstrated, the function and structure of the introduced allele should be carefully assessed. Recommendations are also included on the aspects that need further elaboration for full applicability of the criteria proposed herein are also included.
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.