CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 243Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural safety and regulationsCRISPR and Genetic Engineering

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics

Bradford, Kent J, Van Deynze, Allen, Gutterson, Neal, Parrott, Wayne, Strauss, Steven H·2005·Nature Biotechnology
DOI 10.1038/nbt1084
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The costs of meeting regulatory requirements and market restrictions guided by regulatory criteria are substantial impediments to the commercialization of transgenic crops. Although a cautious approach may have been prudent initially, we argue that some regulatory requirements can now be modified to reduce costs and uncertainty without compromising safety. Long-accepted plant breeding methods for incorporating new diversity into crop varieties, experience from two decades of research on and commercialization of transgenic crops, and expanding knowledge of plant genome structure and dynamics all indicate that if a gene or trait is safe, the genetic engineering process itself presents little potential for unexpected consequences that would not be identified or eliminated in the variety development process before commercialization. We propose that as in conventional breeding, regulatory emphasis should be on phenotypic rather than genomic characteristics once a gene or trait has been shown to be safe.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt1084

Cites

65 of 65 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 67 references

2 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Impacts of Biotech Regulation on Small Business and University Research: Possible Barriers and Potential Solutions (Washington, DC, 2004). http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0602/proceedings.pdf .
  2. Kalaitzandonakes, N. Strategies and structure in the emerging global seed industry. Biofutur 215, 38–42 (2001).
  3. Jaffe, G. Withering on the Vine: Will Agricultural Biotech's Promises Bear Fruit? (Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC, 2005). http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/withering_on_the_vine.pdf .
  4. National Research Council. Field-Testing Genetically Modified Organisms: Framework for Decision (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–242 of 242

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bradford, K. J., Van Deynze, A., Gutterson, N., Parrott, W., & Strauss, S. H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Mendel Biotechnology (United States) (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
Corresponding author
Strauss, Steven H
ORCID
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2005-04
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
439-444
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
DOI
10.1038/nbt1084
OpenAlex
W2150788885
Cited by
243
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
FWCI
25.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Keywords
genetically modified crops, regulatory costs, plant breeding, genetic engineering safety
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Biotechnology, Breeding, Genetic Engineering, Crops, Agricultural, Genome, Plant, Genomics, Plants, Genetically Modified, Government Regulation

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