ArticleGM crops & food2026
From lab to market: industrialization barriers and regulation optimization for new breeding technologies in China.
Article in GM crops & food, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond GMOs: transgene-free gene-edited crops for global food security.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New Breeding Technologies (NBTs), particularly gene editing, are reshaping the global competitive landscape of the seed industry and providing technological support for ensuring food security and advancing the green transformation of agriculture. This study aims to assess China's distinctive position within the global regulatory spectrum of NBTs, an intermediary status between the European Union's process-based model and the product-based model adopted by countries such as the United States and Argentina. Building on this, the article constructs an institutional analysis framework centered on the agricultural industry chain, encompassing four critical stages: research and development collaboration; biosafety assessment and administrative licensing; intellectual property and plant breeders' rights protection; and consumer perception and labeling governance. Through comparative legal analysis and an examination of the entire chain, the study systematically reveals the institutional challenges confronting China's commercialization of NBTs. These challenges include: weak mechanisms for linking the interests of industry, academia, and research institutions; path dependence on approval procedures rooted in traditional genetic modification logic; plant variety protection and relief mechanisms that fail to respond promptly to the technical attributes of NBTs; and consumer distrust driven by the interplay between qualitative labeling and risk narratives. In response, four key areas of reform are proposed: strengthening benefit-sharing and collaborative innovation mechanisms; introducing differentiated, risk-proportionate review pathways for low-risk gene-edited crops; improving breeders' rights and substantive derived variety rules, complemented by punitive damages and insurance mechanisms; and reforming risk communication and labeling systems by adopting quantitative thresholds and tiered information disclosure as the core principles.
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.