Cited by 277Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringAgricultural safety and regulations

Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU

Open access
Hartung, Frank, Schiemann, Joachim·2014·The Plant Journal

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1111/tpj.12413

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartung, F., & Schiemann, J.
Affiliations
Julius Kühn-Institut (DE)
Corresponding author
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
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