Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40766174›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2025

New developments in biotechnology applied to animals: An assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of current EFSA guidance for animal risk assessment.

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Josep Casacuberta, Francisco Barro, Albert Braeuning, Ruud de Maagd, Michelle M Epstein, Thomas Frenzel, Jean-Luc Gallois, Frits Koning, Antoine Messéan and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

28 authors.

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)
Josep Casacuberta
Francisco Barro
Albert Braeuning
Ruud de Maagd
Michelle M Epstein
Thomas Frenzel
Jean-Luc Gallois
Frits Koning
Antoine Messéan
F Javier Moreno
Fabien Nogué
Alan H Schulman
Christoph Tebbe
Eve Veromann
Leslie Firbank
Debora Glandorf
Mette S Herskin
Simon Geoffrey Lillico
Robin Ornsrud
Anna Troedsson-Wargelius
Michele Ardizzone
Paolo Lenzi
Ana M Camargo
Nikoletta Papadopoulou
Reinhilde Schoonjans
Marika Vitali
Giovanni Savoini

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EFSA was requested by the European Commission to provide a scientific opinion on new developments in biotechnology, including new genomic techniques, as applied to animals for food, feed and other agricultural uses. A horizon-scanning exercise identified a variety of animals obtained with new genomic techniques, with the potential to reach the EU market in the short, medium and long term. No novel hazards have been identified that are linked to either the modification process or the newly introduced trait, when SDN-1, SDN-2 and comparable techniques (e.g. base editing or prime editing) were compared to established genomic techniques (EGTs) or conventional breeding. Hazards posed by SDN-3 are of the same nature as those posed by EGTs and the targeted insertion may reduce the potential hazards associated with the disruption of endogenous genes and/or regulatory elements in the recipient genome. Hazards posed by the new trait resulting from the introduced transgenic or intragenic DNA sequence are of the same nature as those posed by EGTs. Hazards posed by the new trait resulting from the introduced cisgenic DNA sequence are of the same nature as those posed by conventional breeding. Off-target mutations from genome editing are similar in nature to those from conventional breeding and do not pose novel hazards. Consequently, based on the currently available data, no new potential hazards, and thus, no new risks to humans, animals or the environment have been identified. A thorough evaluation of existing EFSA guidance documents for the risk assessment of GM animals revealed that their principles and recommendations provide the basis for assessing the risks of new genomic technique (NGT) animals for food, feed and other agricultural uses; however, the current texts cover only partially some areas (e.g. animal health and welfare) and may need updates, adaptations or enhancements on a case-by-case basis to fully address NGT-related risks.

Indexed as

animal health and welfareconventional breedingestablished genomic techniquesgenetically modified animalshazardnew genomic techniquesriskrisk assessmentsynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID40766174
PMCPMC12319424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.