An official report on the safety of genetically modified crops has concluded that there are no known risks to human health.

But the government review of the science involved in the issue warns that the absence of evidence of harm is not the same as proof that there are no risks at all over the safety of GM food.

Forum Response: National Farmers Union

A spokeswoman for the National Farmers Union told ePolitix.com: "The NFU welcomes the publication of the GM Science Review.

"This scientific appraisal makes a very useful contribution to the GM debate and addresses, as far as is currently possible, many of the questions that have been raised by the public and farmers.

"It makes the point that GM crops will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis and supports the need for stringent assessment - something farmers and growers agree with.

"It says the field scale trials - which the NFU has supported - will play an important role in filling any gaps in knowledge about any likely impact of GM crops on the environment.

"Farmers and growers will be looking for assurances on this before they make any personal decisions on growing GM crops, should they be allowed. They will also want to know how traditional and organic systems would be able to co-exist alongside GM crops.

"The importance of farmers in this debate should not be underestimated.

"The impacts (positive or negative) of GM plants will be largely dependent on how GM technology is deployed by farmers and this may in turn depend in part upon incentives to optimise a combination of productivity and environmental friendly usage."

Forum Response: Consumers' Association

Monique Warnock, campaign team leader at the Consumers' Association, said: "The findings are not a clean bill of health for GM. While the report says risks to human health of existing GM crops is low, it highlights that risks remain for future products.

"We hope the government will act on this warning and develop safety assessment technologies, effective surveillance, monitoring and labelling, as the science review panel has recommended.

"The Science Review is only one of the three tests the government has commissioned to help inform its decision on the commercialisation of GM. With less than a third of consumers finding the idea of food produced from a GM plant acceptable, the government must ensure that consumer opinion plays a key role in its decision. Our GM jury results, due in September, will contribute to this process.

"We particularly welcome the panel's recommendation that all GM applications are considered on a case by case basis."