ReviewBiotechnologia2023
Regulation of GMO field trials in the EU and new genomic techniques: will the planned reform facilitate experimenting with gene-edited plants?
Review in Biotechnologia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR-Cas systems for enhancing chilling tolerance in rice: recent advances and future prospects.Biologia futura · 2026Review
- From Lab to Field: CRISPRing Major CultivatedInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Viral vectors for antimicrobial peptide expression: a new path for crop protection.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Green Drug Discovery: Leveraging Biodiversity for Sustainable Pharmaceutical Solutions.Chemistry & biodiversity · 2026Review
- Pepino Mosaic Virus in Tomato: Challenges, Control Strategies, and Future Prospects for Resistance Breeding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Impact of genetically modified organisms on meat quality.Open veterinary journal · 2025Review
- Review
- HarnessingFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents the possible consequences of maintaining the current regulatory regime of the experimental release of genetically modified higher plants in the EU for the products of new genomic techniques (NGTs). Currently, the experimental release is a crucial stage before the authorization of a product for the market. By analyzing the data on the performance of field trials in the EU (numbers, sizes, dominating countries) and comparing the present regulatory provisions with those of selected third countries (including new provisions adopted in the UK), this study shows that the current framework of GMO (genetically modified organisms) field trials is ill-fitted for breeding activities. Due to strict limitations placed on the operator of a field trial in the EU, easing the regulatory burdens on the authorization of certain NGT products for the market may not provide researchers (especially, plant breeders) the competitive position they need if the present legal conditions for carrying out GMO field trials with certain NGT products (especially, those that are considered GMOs covered by the EU GMO legislation) are not going to change as well.
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.