2023
DOI: 10.1038/s41477-023-01403-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Regulation of plants developed through new breeding techniques must ensure societal benefits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 342 Regulatory frameworks should be product rather than process based so that it is the novelty of the characteristics or phenotype of new plant cultivars that are regulated. 18 , 343 They argue that since “there is no evidence for intrinsic risks associated with GM, it is not useful to have a regulatory framework that is based on the premise that GM crops are more hazardous than those produced by conventionally bred plants”. Similarly, others have stated that “the time is right to gradually transition from process-based GMO regulations to product-based GMO regulations because many countries have had sufficient regulatory experience regarding conventional transgenesis” and in doing would extend this to genome-edited crops.…”
Section: Process Standards Versus Product Standardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 342 Regulatory frameworks should be product rather than process based so that it is the novelty of the characteristics or phenotype of new plant cultivars that are regulated. 18 , 343 They argue that since “there is no evidence for intrinsic risks associated with GM, it is not useful to have a regulatory framework that is based on the premise that GM crops are more hazardous than those produced by conventionally bred plants”. Similarly, others have stated that “the time is right to gradually transition from process-based GMO regulations to product-based GMO regulations because many countries have had sufficient regulatory experience regarding conventional transgenesis” and in doing would extend this to genome-edited crops.…”
Section: Process Standards Versus Product Standardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second option and these experts get wages also from the financial benefits of the program. But this depends on the agreement of the breeder, whether you want the first option or the second option [13].…”
Section: Integrated Agricultural Sustainabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many policy actors are vying to shape new regulatory frameworks, with distinct narratives emerging from biotechnology developers and other experts in regard to governance ( Benbrook, 2016 ; Kuzma, 2022 ; Jenkins et al, 2023 ), the emphasis on product vs. process ( Carroll et al, 2016 ; Marchant and Stevens, 2016 ; Gould et al, 2022 ), and the competing values of diverse publics ( Jordan et al, 2017 ; Selfa et al, 2021 ; Strobbe et al, 2023 ). As a group of interdisciplinary scholars examining the impacts of biotechnology on our food, energy, and water systems through the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, we are uniquely positioned to focus a response to the Executive Order on the governance of gene edited foods and crops.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%