ReviewGM crops & food2025
Rethinking gene-edited crop regulation: advancing a Principle-based framework for modern biotechnology governance.
Review in GM crops & food, 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.
- Review
- Genome editing between wonder and rejection.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Beyond GMOs: transgene-free gene-edited crops for global food security.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Beyond the Edit: Integrating CRISPR-Cas Genome Editing Into the Cereal Breeding Pipeline.International journal of genomics · 2026Review
- Non-chemical control of fungal pathogens in crops: a one-health perspective on strategies, mechanisms, and future directions.Frontiers in plant science · 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
Gene editing (GEd) technologies are rapidly transforming agricultural biotechnology; however, their regulatory treatment remains ambiguous under international instruments such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), which was originally developed for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This regulatory uncertainty creates challenges for product developers and regulators. This study critically examines the role of the Precautionary Principle (PP) in governing emerging genetic technologies. While the PP underpins the CPB, its interpretation, particularly in the European Union, has been criticized for creating legal barriers that have delayed the adoption of beneficial technologies. In contrast, a Principle-Based Approach (PBA) provides a more adaptive governance framework, grounded in high-level principles that enable flexibility with evolving scientific evidence. Through a review of global regulatory trends, this study identifies jurisdictional challenges and contrasts the theoretical and practical implications of the PP and PBA. It concludes with policy recommendations advocating a hybrid model integrating precaution and principle-based flexibility.
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.