ReviewFrontiers in plant science2025
Rethinking progress: harmonizing the discourse on genetically modified crops.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bt agave: why it is time to explore a new biotechnological frontier.Pest management science · 2026Review
- 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
- Development of a Gold Nanoparticle-Based Amplification-Free Nanobiosensor for Rapid DNA Detection Supported by Machine Learning.Biosensors · 2026Article
- Effects of Continuous Bt Maize Cultivation on Soil Nutrient Content and Microbial Communities.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetically modified crops (GM crops) also known as biotech crops are crops that have been altered through genetic engineering techniques and under cultivation for approximately 28 years. By October 2024, over 30 nations have approved the cultivation of GM crops. The global area utilized for biotech crop production has reached 206.3 million hectares. Despite the substantial growth in the cultivation of these crops, debate continues between proponents and opponents of GM crops. In this article, critical concerns and common ground between the arguments of both sides were described. The main issues addressed include the naturalness of GM crops, religious perspectives, beneficial aspects, safety issues, socio-economic impacts and intellectual property rights. We argue that the classification GM crops as unnatural is a claim that lacks scientific reality. In a similar vein, comparing GM technology to the act of playing God is inappropriate. Moreover, the belief that GM crops do not contribute to yield improvements is inconsistent with empirical evidence. Additionally, the claim that foods produced from GM crops are unsafe for human consumption holds unseen concerns that is not on the ground. We have also highlighted the necessity of implementing intellectual property rights that support seed developers for a limited duration without violating farmers' rights. In conclusion, as a consumer has the right to know what they eat, labeling of GM food products fosters transparency and enhance consumer autonomy.
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.