Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38550570›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genome editing2024

Where does the EU-path on new genomic techniques lead us?

Finja Bohle, Robin Schneider, Juliane Mundorf, Luise Zühl, Samson Simon, Margret Engelhard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genome editing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  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

6 authors.

Finja Bohle *Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Division of Synthetic Biology Assessment, Enforcement of Genetic Engineering Act, Bonn, Germany.
Robin Schneider *Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Division of Synthetic Biology Assessment, Enforcement of Genetic Engineering Act, Bonn, Germany.
Juliane MundorfFederal Agency for Nature Conservation, Division of Synthetic Biology Assessment, Enforcement of Genetic Engineering Act, Bonn, Germany.
Luise ZühlFederal Agency for Nature Conservation, Division of Synthetic Biology Assessment, Enforcement of Genetic Engineering Act, Bonn, Germany.
Samson SimonFederal Agency for Nature Conservation, Division of Synthetic Biology Assessment, Enforcement of Genetic Engineering Act, Bonn, Germany.
Margret EngelhardFederal Agency for Nature Conservation, Division of Synthetic Biology Assessment, Enforcement of Genetic Engineering Act, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, the European Commission (EC) published a regulatory proposal on plants generated with new genomic techniques (NGTs) (5 July 2023). According to this proposal, NGT plant applications are categorized into category 1 NGT (NGT1) and category 2 NGT (NGT2) based on their molecular characteristics, which diverges from the current legislation centered around Directive 2001/18/EC. To demonstrate where the path of the proposal leads to in practice, we applied the proposed criteria for categorization to a list of NGT plant applications currently in the commercialization pipeline. Combining literature research and a descriptive statistical approach, we can show that 94% of the plant applications affected by the EC proposal, would be classified as NGT1 and thus would receive market approval without risk assessment, monitoring, and sufficient labeling provisions. The remaining 6% of applications would be classified as NGT2 plants, for which, in deviation from the current regulation, an adapted risk assessment is proposed. Screening of the intended traits in the pipeline highlights that certain NGT1 plants can pose similar environmental risks (e.g., invasiveness) to other genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as defined in Directive 2001/18/EC. For example, NGT1 applications based on RNA interference technology can exhibit insecticidal effects with potential side effects on non-target organisms (i.e., other insects). Our quantitative and case-specific elaboration of how the current EC regulatory proposal would affect the environment, health, and consumer protection will be informative for decision-makers and politicians.

Indexed as

CRISPR-CasEC proposalenvironmental risk assessmentERAEU regulationGMOnew genomic techniquesNGT plant

Identifiers

PMID38550570
PMCPMC10973156

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.