FOODS that have been genetically modified pose no greater threat to human health than conventional varieties, Britain’s leading scientific institution said yesterday. 

There was no scientific evidence that foods made from GM crops were any more dangerous to eat than those that were not, the Royal Society said in its submission to the Government’s GM Science Review. 

The nutritional quality of GM foods and their potential for causing allergic reactions was no different from that of non-GM produce, and no credible study had yet found evidence that genetic engineering could harm human health. Claims by campaign groups that eating GM food was risky had no scientific basis whatsoever, the report said. 

"We conducted a major review of the evidence about GM plants and human health last year, and we have not seen any evidence since then that changes our original conclusions," Patrick Bateson, Vice-President and Biological Secretary of the Royal Society, said. 

"If credible evidence does exist that GM foods are more harmful to people than non-GM foods, we should like to know why it has not been made public." 

"We have examined the results of published research, and have found nothing to indicate that GM foods are inherently unsafe. If anybody does have convincing evidence, get it out in the open so that it can be evaluated." 

"The public have a right to decide whether they want to buy GM foods, and are entitled to have access to sensible and informed advice, based on sound science. It is disappointing to find a group like Greenpeace stating on its website that ‘the risks are enormous and the consequences potentially catastrophic’, without offering any solid reasons to support such a claim." 

There were legitimate questions to be asked about the effects of GM crops on the environment, but the issue of food safety, so often raised by campaigners, was bogus, Professor Bateson said. 

In its submissions, the Royal Society called on the Government to ensure that regulations on infant foods and 

GM foods complemented each other. It also said that the European Commission should consider the use of novel and GM products as part of its review of rules covering infant foods. Research should also be undertaken to define the "normal" composition of conventional plants, the Royal Society said. 

Ben Ayliffe, of Greenpeace, said: "Greenpeace commissioned and published a major report from the University of Wageningen on the uncertainties and unknowns around GM crops. This has been submitted to the science review and it is a pity that Professor Bateson has not read it."