Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37176822›Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Recommendations for the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects of Genome-Editing Applications in Plants in the EU.

Michael F Eckerstorfer, Marion Dolezel, Margret Engelhard, Valeria Giovannelli, Marcin Grabowski, Andreas Heissenberger, Matteo Lener, Wolfram Reichenbecher, Samson Simon, Giovanni Staiano and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

13 authors.

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

Funding

Federal Office for the Environment 110013761 / 8T20/19.0116. PJ/0005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current initiative of the European Commission (EC) concerning plants produced using certain new genomic techniques, in particular, targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis, underlines that a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment needs to be maintained when using such applications. The current EU biosafety regulation framework ensures a high level of protection with a mandatory environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) products prior to the authorization of individual GMOs for environmental release or marketing. However, the guidance available from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for conducting such an ERA is not specific enough regarding the techniques under discussion and needs to be further developed to support the policy goals towards ERA, i.e., a case-by-case assessment approach proportionate to the respective risks, currently put forward by the EC. This review identifies important elements for the case-by-case approach for the ERA that need to be taken into account in the framework for a risk-oriented regulatory approach. We also discuss that the comparison of genome-edited plants with plants developed using conventional breeding methods should be conducted at the level of a scientific case-by-case assessment of individual applications rather than at a general, technology-based level. Our considerations aim to support the development of further specific guidance for the ERA of genome-edited plants.

Indexed as

biosafety regulationCRISPR/Casenvironmental risk assessmentgenome-editingGMOnew genomic techniquesplant modification

Identifiers

PMID37176822
PMCPMC10180588

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.