CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 172Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural safety and regulationsRisk Perception and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops

Craig, Wendy, Tepfer, Mark, Degrassi, Giuliano, Ripandelli, Decio·2008·Euphytica
DOI 10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The intentional introduction into the environment or market of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is nearly always governed by a framework of science-based risk assessment and risk management measures. This is usually implemented through the integration of hazard identification and characterisation of all of the elements of risk associated with a new GM crop or derived product. Typical categories of hazards arising from the introduction of transgenic crops include: possible unintended negative health effects in a susceptible subgroup of the consumer (target) population; the evolution of resistance in the targeted pest/pathogen populations when the transgene confers resistance to a pest or pathogen; non-target hazards associated directly or indirectly with the transgenic plant or transgene product outside the plant; and those associated with the integration and subsequent expression of the transgene in a different organism or species following gene flow. The consequences of likely exposure to these and other hazards are considered in this introduction to the main issues raised when evaluating the possible risks arising from the importation or cultivation of genetically modified crops.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 116 references

2 of the 116 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. European Parliament (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities L 106/1:0001-0039. http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_106/l_10620010417en00010038.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  2. GM Science Review Panel (2003) GM science review. First report. An open review of the science relevant to GM crops and food based on interests and concerns of the public. Submitted to the UK Government on 21 July 2003. http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/pdf/gmsci-report1-full.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  3. ILSI Task Force (2004) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology. Task Force of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) International Food Biotechnology Committee. Comprehensive Rev Food Sci Food Saf 3(2):35–104. http://www.members.ift.org/NR/rdonlyres/27BE106D-B616-4348-AE3A-091D0E536F40/0/crfsfsv3n2p00350104ms20040106.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  4. Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AACM (2006) Prediction of the potential allergenicity of novel proteins, Chapter 10. In: Gilissen LJEJ, Wichers HJ, Savelkoul HFJ, Bogers RJ (eds) Allergy matters. New Approaches to Allergy Prevention and Management Series: Wageningen UR Frontis Series, vol 10, p 205. http://www.library.wur.nl/frontis/allergy_matters/10_kleter.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  5. Kranthi KR, Naidu S, Dhawad CS, Tatwawadi A, Mate K, Patil E, Bharose AA, Behere GT, Wadaskar RM, Kranthi S (2005) Temporal and intra-plant variability of Cry1Ac expression in Bt-cotton and its influence on the survival of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera). Curr Sci 89(2):291–298
  6. Lehrer SB (2000) Potential health risks of genetically modified organisms: how can allergens be assessed and minimized? In: Persley GJ, Lantin MM (eds) Agricultural biotechnology, the environment and the poor. Proceedings of an International Conference, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 21–22 October 1999. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Washington DC, USA, 235 pp. http://www.cgiar.org/biotech/rep0100/Lehrer.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  7. OECD (2000c) Widening the debate on health and safety. The OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods, 28 February–1 March 2000, Edinburgh, UK. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/30/2097312.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  8. USA EPA (1996a) Bacillus thuringiensis CryIA(b) delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production in all plants; exemption from requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 61(150):40340–40343, August 2, 1996, http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1996/August/Day-02/pr-838.html. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  9. USA EPA (1997a) Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki CryIA(c) and the genetic material necessary for its production in all plants; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on all raw agricultural commodities. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 62(70):17720–17722, April 11, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/April/Day-11/p9376.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  10. USA EPA (1997b) Coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus and the genetic material necessary for its production; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 62(163):44575–44579, August 22, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/August/Day-22/p22393.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  11. USA EPA (1997c) Coat protein of papaya ringspot virus and the genetic material necessary for its production; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, Federal Register 62(163):44572–44575, August 22, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/August/Day-22/p22395.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  12. USA EPA (1997d) Coat protein of potato virus Y and the genetic material necessary for its production; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 62(158):43653–43657, August 15, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/August/Day-15/p21690.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  13. USA EPA (1997e) Coat proteins of watermelon mosaic virus-2 and zucchini yellow mosaic virus and the genetic material necessary for its production; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 62(163):44579–44582, August 22, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/August/Day-22/p22394.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  14. USA EPA (1998b) Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies tolworthi Cry9C protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 63(69):17687–17690, April 10, 1998. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1998/April/Day-10/p9245.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  15. USA EPA (1999b) Potato leaf roll virus resistance gene (also known as orf1/orf2 gene); exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 64(51):13078–13080, March 17, 1999. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1999/March/Day-17/p6176.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  16. USA EPA (2001a) Exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for Residues of Nucleic Acids that are Part of Plant-Incorporated Protectants (Formerly Plant-Pesticides). Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 174, Federal Register 66(139):37817–37830, July 19, 2001. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/nucleic_acid_residues.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  17. USA EPA (2004a) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2; amended exemption from requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 69(62):16819–16823, March 31, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2004/March/Day-31/p7076.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  18. USA EPA (2004b) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 96(62):16809–16814, March 31, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2004/March/Day-31/p6930.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  19. USA EPA (2005e) Bacillus thuringiensis modified Cry3A Protein (mCry3A) and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn; temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. Federal Register 70(65):17323–17327, April 6, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2005/April/Day-06/p6499.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  20. USA EPA (2005f) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production in corn; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 70(182):55254–55260, September 21, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2005/September/Day-21/p18582.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  21. USA EPA (2005g) Bacillus thuringiensis VIP3A protein and the genetic material necessary for its production; temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 70(81):21962–21966, April 28, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2005/April/Day-28/p8530.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–171 of 171

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Craig, W., Tepfer, M., Degrassi, G., & Ripandelli, D.
Affiliations
  • AREA Science Park (IT)
  • International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (IT)
Corresponding author
Craig, Wendy
ORCID
Venue
Euphytica
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-01-10
Volume
164
Issue
3
Pages
853-880
ISSN
  • 0014-2336 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-5060
DOI
10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8
OpenAlex
W2155336937
Cited by
172
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
FWCI
18.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Euphytica (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
genetically modified crops, risk assessment, risk management, hazard identification, hazard characterization, pest resistance, gene flow, transgene integration, transgenic plants, biosafety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review