The environment secretary has given the go ahead to the commercial production of some genetically modified crops. Margaret Beckett told the Commons that GM maize will be officially licensed.

Government Response: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Margaret Beckett, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, said: "No other country has undertaken such a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the case for and against GM crops. Having weighed up all the evidence, the government and the devolved administrations agree that the only sensible approach is to assess each GM crop on an individual case-by-case basis. At the same time we recognise that people have legitimate concerns about GM crops which need to be addressed.

"According to scientific evidence, the GM maize used in the FSE trials poses less risk to the environment than its conventional counterparts.

"People are concerned about the safety of GM crops and food. Our top priority is to protect human health and the environment. People say they want to choose between GM and non-GM. We will provide genuine choice for consumers and farmers."

Party Response: Liberal Democrats

Andrew George, Lib Dem food and rural affairs spokesman, said: "Not only has this decision been foisted on UK farmers, consumers and parliamentarians, but its premise is scientifically questionable.

"It beggars believe that the minister came to parliament today to announce a fait accompli on GM crops. Parliament has been turned into a notice board rather than a debating chamber.

"The minister stated that a license for commercial GMs would be granted, but only until October 2006 when the biotechs would have to produce new evidence to continue production.

"Therefore, the minister has effectively turned the whole of the UK into a trial site until that date.

"Giving the go ahead today, means the minister should be confident today that no more evidence is needed.

"This is a ludicrous fudge of a very important issue.

"Liberal Democrats remain opposed to granting licenses for GM maize fodder until 2006. The intervening period must be used for additional independent research and trials using the correct pesticides."

Shadow secretary of state for agriculture, fisheries and food, John Whittingdale, said:  “It is an outrage that the government had decided to approve the growing of GM maize, before the environmental audit select committee unanimously recommended that this should not happen.

“The committee raised serious scientific concerns on the commercial growth of GM crops. This makes it even more disturbing that the government has decided to ignore many of those questions raised by the report.

“Furthermore, the government has agreed to licensing when by their own admission, they have yet to create bio-security, separation distances and structure to manage liability and compensation for those farmers whose produce may be contaminated by GM crops.

“The government has chosen to ignore its own consultation process which demonstrated that 90 per cent of public opinion was against the growth of GM produce. Many people will want to know why.

“The legitimate concerns raised by the public, the select committee and environmental organisations raise very real questions about the dangers to the environment that may result from GM crop production. Until these questions have been answered, no approvals for commercial plantings should be given.”

Forum Response: The Consumers' Association

Sue Davies, principal policy adviser, Consumers' Association, said: "The government's decision to give the green light to commercialisation of GM shows utter contempt for consumer opinion.

"GM maize offers no obvious benefits.  Consumers don't want it, the food industry doesn't want it, yet bizarrely the government is determined that it will be grown and used in animal feed from next year.

"Our research shows that fewer than a third of consumers think that GM crops should be grown commercially in the UK at the moment. There are still too many unanswered questions about the long-term implications. When will the government take its fingers out of its ears and listen?

"By rushing ahead in this way, the government has shown that it clearly prioritises biotech industry interests over consumer opinion and consumer choice."

Forum Response: English Nature

Dr Brian Johnson, biotechnology adviser for English Nature, said: "It is important that any impacts on wildlife of growing GM crops continue to be scientifically assessed crop by crop. English Nature does not approve or disapprove of the commercialisation of this specific GM maize but the evidence from the field scale trials showed that growing it is better for biodiversity than growing maize using conventional methods. We shall continue to supply independent scientific advice to the government on impacts on biodiversity of all GM crops and their management systems."

Forum Response: Country Land and Business Association

Mark Hudson, president of the Country Land and Business Association said: "Landowners should tread cautiously with GM crops.

"This is a brave decision on the part of the secretary of state. It is based on careful scientific evaluation of the information available, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Release in the Environment, and has been considered, as all genetic modification should be, on a case-by-case basis.

"In principle the CLA welcomes the application of safe, well-tested new technologies to produce higher quality, more pest and disease-resistant crops.

"However, while there is no evidence of risks to human health from consuming products derived from currently licensed GM crops, we support consumers' right to know if their food contains ingredients which have been derived from GM crops. There is also concern on the part of organic producers about potential cross contamination from GM varieties.

"Given that consumer reactions to foods containing GM ingredients are unpredictable, and these in turn depend partly on commercial decisions taken by food processors and retailers, the CLA is warning landowners that GM crop trials may pose a threat to land values.

"Landowners' property and crops may also be vulnerable to attack from GM opponents.  We advise our members to be cautious when considering whether to participate in crop trials and whether, when it is available, to plant GM crops, and if they do so, to consider obtaining full indemnity.

"There are still a number of practical issues that must be resolved, particularly that of "co-existence" - whether it is possible to grow GM varieties in the UK without the risk of unacceptably contaminating conventional and organic crops."

Forum Response: National Farmers' Union

Tim Bennett,  president of the NFU, said: “We support the decision by Margaret Beckett to adopt a science-based position on this controversial issue, but we ask the government to proceed with caution.

“Farmers and growers should not be excluded from technologies that have received regulatory and scientific approval, but it is essential that systems are established to allow GM and non-GM production to co-exist.

“The farming industry, as always, will strive to provide a safe and diverse choice for the consumer, but it is important to develop measures to protect businesses that choose not to explore the GM option.

“Co-existence strategies should be developed in a science-based manner, with the participation of all strands of the food chain, and we will continue to work with the supply chain group SCIMAC to deliver a robust set of guidelines.

“It is important to note that any decision to grow this particular variety of animal fodder will be determined by the value it might add to the farm business as a whole. Farmers will only adopt this new option if market forces or consumer demand make it economical to do so.

“Now this decision has been taken, the government must take positive steps to protect the homes and businesses of farmers who legitimately choose to grow this new variety of forage maize.

“Whilst recognising the right to legal protest, it is essential that farm businesses are offered adequate protection under the law as regards trespass and criminal damage.”

Forum Response: National Consumer Council

Sue Dibb, senior researcher for the National Consumer Council, said: "Until we see the detail of the promised code of practice on co-existence and the statutory powers behind it - and until the GM industry accepts its responsibility for any future liabilities - consumers cannot be confident that the government's hedged GM policy will adequately address consumer concerns from the GM debate.

"Giving the green light to GM maize before promised safeguards are in place is a mistake. It does nothing to reassure consumers that their interests are paramount."