ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
One risk assessment for genetically modified plants.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The global scientific consensus on genetically modified crop risk assessments.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- Environmental Risk Assessment and Confinement of Genetically Engineered Trees with an Emphasis on Vegetative Reproduction.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Regulatory provisions for post-release monitoring of genetically modified organisms in Africa.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- A standard-curve-free ΔΔCt method for rapid GMO compliance screening relative to labeling thresholds.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- AI-assisted crop improvement: new design tools within established regulatory frameworks.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With over 30 years' experience conducting risk assessments for genetically modified (GM) plants, regulatory agencies that review the safety of GM plants understand the potential food, feed, and environmental risks associated with these products. This vast regulatory experience is underutilized when risk assessments for GM plants are repeated on a per-country basis. The redundancy in country-by-country reviews of the same GM plants places a disproportionate regulatory burden on developers and strains limited government resources for conducting safety reviews. Requiring repeated, multi-country risk assessments to obtain food and feed import permits or cultivation permits for GM plants is unnecessary as repeated assessments do not change the safety and associated risks of already approved products. To avoid redundancies in the regulation of GM plants, we propose adoption of one, global risk assessment for food, feed, and environmental release carried out to international standards. Our proposed model for one global risk assessment encourages the sharing of food, feed and environmental risk assessment summaries between countries while maintaining national approvals for GM plants. Steps towards a streamlined and efficient review process for GM plants are discussed, including implementing a global, forward-looking approval process that eliminates repetitive risk assessments and re-reviews of low-risk traits. Harmonization of risk assessment is an achievable goal that would accelerate regulatory approvals and enable broader access to the benefits of GM plants which are currently only available to some countries.
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.