Public opposition to genetically modified crops may have been overestimated by a government funded public consultation, according to a study published on Thursday.

Party Response: Conservatives

John Whittingdale ,shadow secretary of state for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said: “There needs to be open and transparent consultation before any application is granted. Moreover, there will only be a market for GM crops if the government is able to convince consumers of their safety yet so far the government has failed to do this.

“GM crops could potentially be of great benefit to consumers, farmers and the Third World. However, the government must only proceed to grant permission for commercial growing on the basis of sound science and unambiguous rules.

“It is essential that there should be clearly defined separation of distances between GM and non-GM species, rules governing liability for any contamination and easily understood labelling to allow consumers to make an informed choice.

“Greg Barker has introduced a Private Member’s Bill to establish a legislative framework to achieve this and I hope the government will use this opportunity to set the rules before granting any applications.”

Party Response: Liberal Democrats

George MP, Liberal Democrat shadow rural affairs secretary, said: "This document shows that the government are treating people’s concerns about GM with contempt, and skew parliamentary discussion to favour biotech giants.

"If the public realised what was being decided in their name, there would be uproar. The government has already been taking small steps towards licensing GM, but the cumulative effect will be a momentous and irreversible decision.

"Instead of coming to Parliament with a statement, they should be allowing MPs to debate a policy motion before making any decision with potentially harmful environmental effects.

"Their plan to link the growing of GM crops in the UK to the future of the developing world is a particularly cynical ploy.

"Crops grown here will not help feed the world’s poor. The inclusion of that issue, and the briefing of MPs with interests in that field is to purely a credibility crutch."

Forum Response: British Retail Consortium

Richard Ali, BRC director of food policy, said: "In response to customer demand, BRC members do not currently stock foods sourced from genetically modified materials and ingredients. A number of them have secured supplies of meat from animals fed on non-GM animal feed.

"Retailers will consider the sale of GM foods or foods containing GM ingredients, provided they have approval from the regulatory authorities and where they have confirmed a clear customer demand.

"Such demand could arise from the offering of food that demonstrates a real benefit to the consumer, for example, food which has an enhanced nutritional content, an improved taste or keeping quality or a lower price."

Forum Response: Consumers' Association

Sue Davies, principal policy adviser, Consumers' Association, said: "Consumers have made it clear that they do not want GM to be commercialised in the UK yet. By ignoring this view the government is showing a blatant disregard for consumer opinion.

"Our research shows that consumers have real concerns about GM commercialisation including the long-term effects on health and the environment. Furthermore they believe that of those to benefit from GM, consumers will be right at the bottom of the list.

"Proposals in the Cabinet meeting minutes to protect against cross-contamination between GM, organic and conventional crops are fundamentally flawed. Unless the rules governing co-existence are legally binding consumer choice will be completely undermined.

"The Cabinet meeting minutes show that the public dialogue and debate was nothing but a public relations exercise. There was clearly never any intention to include the views of consumers in its decisions over GM."