Update of Regulatory Options of New Breeding Techniques and Biosafety Approaches among Selected Countries: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new set of breeding techniques, referred to as New Breeding Techniques developed in the last two decades have potential for enhancing improved productivity in crop and animal breeding globally. These include site directed nucleases based genomic editing procedures-CRISPR and Cas associated proteins, Zinc Finger Nucleases, Meganucleases/Homing Endonucleases and Transcription- Activator Like-Effector Nucleases for genome editing and other technologies including- Oligonucleotide-Directed Mutagenesis, Cisgenesis and intragenesis, RNA-Dependent DNA methylation; Transgrafting, Agroinfiltration, Reverse breeding. There are ongoing global debates on whether the processes of and products emerging from these technologies should be regulated as genetically modified organisms or approved as conventional products. Decisions on whether to regulate as GMOs are based both on understanding of the molecular basis of their development and if the GMO intermediate step was used. For example- cisgenesis, can be developed using Agrobacterium tumefaciens methods of transformation, a process used by GMO but if the selection is properly conducted the intermediate GMO elements will be eliminated and the final product will be identical to the conventionally developed crops. Others like Site Directed Nuclease 3 are regulated as GMOs in countries such as United State of America, Canada, European Union, Argentina, Australia. Progress in genome editing research, testing of genome edited bacterial blight resistant rice, development of Guidelines for regulating new breeding techniques or genome editing in Africa is also covered with special reference to South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria. Science- and evidence-based approach to regulation of new breeding techniques among regulators and policy makers should be strongly supported.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".