ArticleGM crops & food2024
Biotechnology executive order opens door for regulatory reform and social acceptance of genetically engineered microbes in agriculture.
Article in GM crops & food, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbial consortia for pesticide biodegradation: mechanisms, cross-class pathways, and translational challenges.Biodegradation · 2026Review
- From lab to law: emerging applications, potential benefits, evolving regulatory framework and challenges for engineered probiotics.Microbial cell factories · 2026Review
- Developing improved inoculants through genome editing of diazotrophic bacteria for cereals: Is this the right time for Brazil?Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026Article
- Developments and food safety considerations concerning genetically engineered microbial crop protection agents and biostimulants.Journal of pesticide science · 2025Article
- Environmental Applications of GM Microorganisms: Tiny Critters Posing Huge Challenges for Risk Assessment and Governance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A call for congressional action: revisiting the U.S. coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the United States, regulatory review of genetically engineered microbes for agriculture falls under the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (CFRB). However, the lack of a centralized regulatory pathway and multiple oversight authorities can lead to uncertainty in regulatory review. Using three microbial-based technologies for agriculture as illustrative examples, this commentary identifies the weaknesses and challenges associated with the CFRB by assessing the current system and proposed changes to the system under a multi criteria decision analysis framework. In addition, it discusses opportunities for regulatory reform to improve clarity, efficiency, and public acceptance of genetically engineered microbes in agriculture under the CHIPS and Science Act and the 2022 Executive Order on the Bioeconomy.
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.