National Studies  

Use quick links below or scroll down for full list

Australia (Commonwealth of Australia)
Belgium (VIB Flanders Institute for Biotechnology)
Canada (Royal Society; Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee)
Denmark (DANIDA/ Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
France (Academy des sciences)
New Zealand (Royal Commission)
UK (Nuffield Council on Bioethics; Royal Society; Includes NEW UK reports: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, UK Cabinet Office Strategy Unit; UK GM Science Review Panel)
USA (National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, CAST, NCFAP, Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology, Society of Toxicology)

Back to Bibliography

Australia

Commonwealth of Australia

Australia 2000. A Cautionary Tale: Fish don’t lay tomatoes, A Report on the Gene Technology Bill 2000, November 2000, Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Commonwealth of Australia. 

Belgium

VIB Flanders Institute for Biotechnology

Belgium VIB 2001. Safety of Genetically Modified Crops. Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology (VIB). Custers, R. (ed). 

Canada

Royal Society

Canada, Royal Society 2001. Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada, January 2001, Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, The Royal Society of Canada. 

Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC)

Canada, CBAC 2001. Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and Other Novel Foods in Canada - Interim Report of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee to the Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee, August 2001.

Canada, CBAC 2002. Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and Other Novel Foods in Canada - Report of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee to the Biotechnology. August 2002.

Denmark

DANIDA / Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Denmark, DANIDA 2002. Assessment of Potentials and Constraints for Development and Use of Plant Biotechnology in Relation to Plant Breeding and Crop Production in Developing Countries: Working Paper, 2002, DANIDA/ Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

France

Academie des sciences

Academie des sciences 2003.  Les plantes genetiquement modifiees.  Academie des sciences (Academy of sciences, France)

New Zealand

Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

New Zealand Royal Commission 2001. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, July 2001, The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, The Royal Society of New Zealand. 

UK

Nuffield Council on Bioethics

UK Nuffield 1999. Genetically Modified Crops: the ethical and social issues.  Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 

The Royal Society

UK, Royal Society 2002. Genetically modified plants for food use and human health - an update, February 2002. The Royal Society, UK. 

NEW UK Reports

The following reports were published after the first edition of the ICSU review was concluded.  They have been included as additional important material which will be fully considered in the second edition.

Nuffield 2003. The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: Draft for comment, June 2003. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 

Strategy Unit 2003. Field Work: Weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops, July 2003. Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.

Science Review Panel 2003. GM Science Review: First Report, July 2003. GM Science Review Panel.

USA

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the USA

NRC 2000. Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants.  The National Academies: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council.

NAS 2002. Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation, 2002. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialisation of Transgenic Plants, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Division on Earth and Life Sciences, National Research Council.

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology)

CAST 2002. Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops (Authrs: Carpenter, J., Felsot, A., Goode, T., Hammig, M., Onstad, D. and Sankula, S.). CAST, Ames, Iowa, USA. 

National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP)

NCFAP 2002, Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in US Agriculture: An Analysis of 40 Case Studies. (Authors: Gianessi, L.P., Silvers, C.S. and Carpenter, J.E.) June 2002, 75p

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology

Pew 2001. Harvest on the Horizon: Future Uses of Agricultural Biotechnology, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (September 2001). 

Pew 2002. Three years later: Genetically Engineered Corn and the Monarch Butterfly Controversy. The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 

Pew 2003. Future Fish? Issues in Science and Regulation of Transgenic Fish, January 2003.  Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology

US Society of Toxicology

US SOT 2002.  The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced Through Biotechnology, Society of Toxicology Position Paper September 25, 2002.  

back to top