ArticleFrontiers in genome editing2024
Where does the EU-path on new genomic techniques lead us?
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Horizon scanning of potential environmental applications of terrestrial animals, fish, algae and microorganisms produced by genetic modification, including the use of new genomic techniques.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Pooled it
- Faster, Smarter, Precise: Integrating Speed Breeding and CRISPR-Based New Genomic Techniques into the Conventional Field Crop Breeding Pipeline.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Psychological and sociodemographic contexts of attitudes towards new genomic techniques (NGT) foods and products in Poland.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Gene Flow and Hybridization Potential Between GM/NGT Crops and Conventional Varieties or Wild Relatives: A Scoping Literature Review with Emphasis on Oilseed Rape (Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- Neoclassical development of genetic sexing strains for insect pest and disease vector control.Insect science · 2026Review
- How the proposal for a new regulation for new genomic techniques affects the European Union's food system sustainability objectives.NPJ sustainable agriculture · 2026Review
- The Potential of NGTs to Overcome Constraints in Plant Breeding and Their Regulatory Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Complexity Meets Risk-The Next Generation of Genome-Edited Plants Challenges Established Concepts for Environmental Risk Assessment in the EU.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Overview on Current Selectable Marker Systems and Novel Marker Free Approaches in Fruit Tree Genetic Engineering.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.