Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU
Open accessAbstract
Several new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) have been developed during the last decade, and make it possible to precisely perform genome modifications in plants. The major problem, other than technical aspects, is the vagueness of regulation concerning these new techniques. Since the definition of eight NPBTs by a European expert group in 2007, there has been an ongoing debate on whether the resulting plants and their products are covered by GMO legislation. Obviously, cover by GMO legislation would severely hamper the use of NPBT, because genetically modified plants must pass a costly and time-consuming GMO approval procedure in the EU. In this review, we compare some of the NPBTs defined by the EU expert group with classical breeding techniques and conventional transgenic plants. The list of NPBTs may be shortened (or extended) during the international discussion process initiated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. From the scientific point of view, it may be argued that plants developed by NPBTs are often indistinguishable from classically bred plants and are not expected to possess higher risks for health and the environment. In light of the debate on the future regulation of NPBTs and the accumulated evidence on the biosafety of genetically modified plants that have been commercialized and risk-assessed worldwide, it may be suggested that plants modified by crop genetic improvement technologies, including genetic modification, NPBTs or other future techniques, should be evaluated according to the new trait and the resulting end product rather than the technique used to create the new plant variety.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Although engineered plants from genome editing cannot be distinguished from plants generated by traditional breeding methods, they may be classified as GMOs at least in the European Union because their production involves transgenic intermediates.
“Although, the resulting engineered plants cannot be distinguished from plants generated by traditional breeding methods, they may be classified as GMOs at least in the European Union, because their production involves transgenic intermediates (reviewed in Hartung and Schiemann, 2014).”
From Shaping plant architecture (2015) · cites this paper as Hartung and Schiemann, 2014
Cites
A Programmable Dual-RNA–Guided DNA Endonuclease in Adaptive Bacterial Immunity
Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1225829 · Cited by 17,116 · see citing works
Benner, S. A., & Sismour, A. M. (2005) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1637 · Cited by 834 · see citing works
The economics of genetically modified crops
Qaim, M. (2009) · Annual Review of Resource Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144203 · Cited by 465 · see citing works
Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding
Lusser, M., Parisi, C., Plan, D., & Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2012) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2142 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Site-directed nucleases: a paradigm shift in predictable, knowledge-based plant breeding
Podevin, N., Davies, H. V., Hartung, F., Nogué, F., & Casacuberta, J. M. (2013) · Trends in biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.03.004 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops
Craig, W., Tepfer, M., Degrassi, G., & Ripandelli, D. (2008) · Euphytica · doi:10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lawrenson, T., Shorinola, O., Stacey, N., Li, C., Østergaard, L., Patron, N., Uauy, C., & Harwood, W. (2015) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0826-7 · Cited by 551 · see citing works
Sprink, T., Eriksson, D., Schiemann, J., & Hartung, F. (2016) · Plant Cell Reports · doi:10.1007/s00299-016-1990-2 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Self-citationTeichmann, T., & Muhr, M. (2015) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.00233 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
“Although, the resulting engineered plants cannot be distinguished from plants generated by traditional breeding methods, they may be classified as GMOs at least in the European Union, because their production involves transgenic intermediates (reviewed in Hartung and Schiemann, 2014).”
BackgroundEckerstorfer, M. F., Engelhard, M., Heissenberger, A., Simon, S., & Teichmann, H. (2019) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2019.00026 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1
Van Eenennaam, A. L., & Young, A. E. (2014) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas.2014-8124 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Improving Microalgae for Biotechnology—From Genetics to Synthetic Biology
Hlavova, M., Turoczy, Z., & Bisova, K. (2015) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.01.009 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Corporate concentration and technological change in the global seed industry
Bonny, S. (2017) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su9091632 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Kondo, K., & Taguchi, C. (2022) · Food Safety · doi:10.14252/foodsafetyfscj.d-21-00016 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hartung, F., & Schiemann, J.
- Affiliations
- Julius Kühn-Institut (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Hartung, Frank
- ORCID
- Hartung, Frank
- Venue
- The Plant Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-02-03
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 742-752
- ISSN
- 0960-7412 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-313X
- OpenAlex
- W2136626126
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 12
- FWCI
- 2.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Plant Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OpenAgrar (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Food Safety Authority
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
- Keywords
- new plant breeding techniques, genome editing, GMO regulation, biosafety, EU GMO legislation, transgenic plants, risk assessment, plant genetic improvement
- MeSH terms
- Breeding, European Union, Genome, Plant, Plants, Genetically Modified
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