Members of the public are to get their say on the merits of genetic modification.

The government is launching a "national debate" in a bid to form some sort of consensus about whether the UK wants to grow GM crops.

The debate will start in the Autumn and run until next May or June - but there won't be a referendum.

Field trials of GM crops are already underway, but environmental campaigners say there should be more thorough safety tests before they are grown commercially.

Concerns surrounding GM technology centre on the impact on the environment, wildlife and human health.

Recently, several African countries have turned away food aid because it contained genetically modified corn.

What are the pros and cons of GM crops? How should the public debate be run? Would you buy GM foods? Should GM crops be used to help relieve hunger?

We put your questions to Biotechnology Professor Vivian Moses, from the pro-GM group CropGen, in a LIVE forum for the BBC's Six O'clock news, presented by Manisha Tank.

Transcript

Manisha Tank:
Welcome to this Six Forum. We're talking about GM crops. It seems the Government are launching a national debate aimed at finding out whether Britons want to give the cultivation of GM crops the thumbs up. It seems the debate won't begin until the autumn and it could run into next year but meanwhile field trials of GM crops are underway but environmentalists are saying that safety tests should be carried out thoroughly before we make a decision on whether these crops should be grown commercially.

You've had a lot to say about the subject and to answer your questions and comments we're joined by Professor Vivian Moses, who represents the pro-GM group, CropGen.

We'll kick off straight away with wanting to know why we should trust you. We've had a number of e-mails written in on this point. For example, Claire Lockley in London, L Clifton from Brighton, Sarah S, London and many others - saying CropGen is funded by the genetic food industry to spread their point of view. On what basis should we believe their claim to be a consumer information initiative?

Professor Vivian Moses:
Well, we're independent in our thoughts but we generally favour the ideas of this new technology because we think it can be useful. I reject the idea that you can't trust people simply because they happen to be supported by one or other interest. I think you have to judge what people say and make your own decision as to whether you think they're trustworthy and their information is reliable.

Manisha Tank:
Jim Thomas, London, UK asks: The EU is proposing to allow a "tolerance" for genetically engineered seeds to be planted. In effect this means that one in every 200 maize plants grown in the UK from next month could be genetically engineered, and neither the farmer nor the public will be told about it. Doesn't this make a mockery of any so called national debate on whether to commercialise GM crops?

Professor Vivian Moses:
I think the tolerance level refers to the amount of GM material that there can be in a product and I think the EU rule says that if there is more than a limited percentage - maybe �% of a particular GM variety in each ingredient, as far as I know, then it would have to be labelled according to the rules. That doesn't mean that 1 in every 200 plants in the country would be GM - that's a different sort of thing. They could all be GM but it doesn't mean that the food that is made from them would necessarily be of that sort.

Manisha Tank:
Text message from Matt, Bedfordshire: I don't know much about GM food but I think I've been eating it for years. Have I?

Professor Vivian Moses:
He might have been - he certainly will have been if he's been in America because Americans have been eating it for 7 years or so and it's not labelled in America - they have a different attitude to that of Europeans - so you don't actually know. But processed foods which contain soya and maize - and about 60% do in the US - are likely to contain GM material. Many of them have done here and probably still do in spite of the protestations of some of the supermarkets that they are GM free - they may not be. I think one ought to ask them.

Manisha Tank:
Angela Duffield, Inverness, Scotland: If GM crops were licensed, would they be clearly labelled on supermarket packaging?

Professor Vivian Moses:
They are licensed. There are eight approved foods - already approved and have been for some years - there are three varieties of oilseed rape, three of maize, one of soya bean, one of tomatoes. The labelling is not yet actually in force. The EU has been talking about rules for labelling. The only product which was clearly a GM product in this country and was sold by a couple of supermarkets in the late '90s. But that product was very clearly labelled, voluntarily by the companies and they put explanatory leaflets on the shelf so that people could actually decide for themselves and see what they were getting.

Manisha Tank:
D Smith, London asks: Do you think it is right that the US is using food aid in Africa to test GM crops?

Professor Vivian Moses:
I don't the US is using food aid in Africa to test GM crops. The testing is done in the US - very extensively - in all countries before any agreement is given that these products can be put on sale, they have to be extensively tested. Now it's a matter of judgment whether you think the testing is enough and clearly the governments and the regulators think it is but it's obviously up to an individual who may have a different view. But I want to stress that it is a matter of judgment as to whether you think the testing was enough. I'm not aware, and I very much doubt that the US is exporting food which has not been approved for use in the US itself.

Manisha Tank:
David Meeks, Harrogate, UK: If GM crops are the right solution, then they will be the right solution for a great many years to come. Is that the case? Does the rigorous testing tend to continue from a scientific point of view?

Professor Vivian Moses:
There are two answers that I have to give to that question. First of all one says, right - right for what? I don't think there's a universal panacea for everything. This is a technology which will be appropriate for some things and not for others. I suspect that what will happen is that there will be on-going monitoring of these products when they're on sale so that people can actually keep an eye on them and see whether in fact they are behaving as one hopes they will - properly - and if they're not then you take remedial action. That, one might say, ought to be done for other things as well.

Manisha Tank:
Text message from Richard M in Lowestoft, UK: Can you give an absolute and unqualified assurance that GM foods are safe and pose no public health risk?

Professor Vivian Moses:
You cannot ever give such an assurance about anything whatsoever because to say something is safe means that you know absolutely that nothing bad will happen tomorrow and of course you can't know that. Safe means without danger and all we can say about without danger is that up until now something may have shown no signs of danger but you can't tell whether it will happen tomorrow. It only requires one instance of danger for you to say something is not safe.

So people say that, for example, railways are safer than driving by car in the sense that fewer people get injured but of course we have very severe rail accidents. Does that mean a railway is safe or not safe? It's that sort of question. I don't think there are any absolute answers on questions like safety, ever.

Manisha Tank:
Peter White, Kettering, Northants: Don't you think it's better to run more tests over a longer period than jumping straight in? I'm sure there are some positive points but we need to make sure it's safe first.

Professor Vivian Moses:
I think this comes back to that question of judgment again. Before the regulators - before the government bodies - who work in the public interest and this is not just in this country and the EU but also in North America and Canada, Australia and New Zealand - they've all come to the same conclusions. The companies test - and then these people scrutinise the test and can ask for more information - and these tests go on for about ten years or more before they are allowed to be sold as foods and they are not allowed to be sold unless the regulators regard them as being safe. The regulators have therefore made that judgment that they are. But you can argue with them. It is entirely legitimate to say that they should have done more testing. But in that case I think it's up to people who want more testing to say what it is they want tested because up to now people have tested everything that they think is appropriate in the circumstances. If you want more, then I think you have define what more you want.

Manisha Tank:
Jane Smith, Canterbury, UK: On the basis that some special of sugar beet, including beta vulgaris, has been shown to be able to travel to up to 1 kilometre. Should the Government redress their guidelines as to the minimum distances that GM crops must be a distanced from wild type plants?

Professor Vivian Moses:
First of all there is no commercial planting, we've only had testing so far and the Government has set separation distances for testing which will give a substantial degree of freedom but nothing is perfect and absolute. You can never guarantee that there is 100% separation of pollen and you can never ensure that last bee won't carry a pollen grain some miles as people have claimed in the past. So you can never be absolute on these sorts of things and you have to recognise that people do different things and they have to live with one another in the world. And so, I think, under those circumstances, you have to regard these sorts of things in the way that you take reasonable precautions but you can never ever with anything be absolute.

Manisha Tank:
Mel Smith, UK: Surely the popularity of organic food shows how genetically modified produce will be received by the general public in this country.

Let's face it, there have been supermarkets, for example, albeit perhaps to make money, running lines on organic foods because people are buying them and have more faith in them.

Professor Vivian Moses:
Well some people do and good luck to them. I think if people want to buy organic food, then indeed they should and the supermarkets clearly respond to that and there's a very healthy market and that's a good thing that some farmers are successful and that they can sell their products. But I don't like the idea that the organic movement is trying to exclude something else because it has made a decision that it doesn't want any of it itself. I don't think it is right to say to people that you mustn't have it because we don't want it. I think it is up to people to make up their own minds as to whether they want to have GM foods - it shouldn't be forced on them of course - but they ought to have the right. Choice works in two directions and therefore I think one ought to be able to say no and one ought to be able to say yes as with other sorts of things that one chooses.

Manisha Tank:
Talking of saying no or yes, we've been running a vote for people who are watching the forum on line - they've been voting on the issue and they've decided that 55% of the people out there who voted on this issue said that they would buy GM foods.

Professor Vivian Moses:
I think it's fairly typical. A lot of studies of this sort have been done and the numbers of course bounce up and down a bit. But it turns out about a half of the people in this country say they are either in favour or they're willing to give it a go and about a half of them say they are not in favour and they are not willing to give it a go and it has actually been like that more or less for some years - it's crawling towards favourable - this one's a little high towards favourable compared with some that have been. But around 50% or a bit more, shows that at least half the people in this country are at least sympathetic to trying the new technology and sensing its possible value. So I think we should not take the view that the British public reject it, as some people claim - it clearly doesn't, as your own poll has just shown apparently.

Manisha Tank:
Lee Manning, Cambridge: What do you think is the most exciting aspect of GM technology?

Professor Vivian Moses:
I think one of the most important things is that it offers the opportunity of a very successful agriculture with much less use of artificial chemicals on the land. I think that's very important. Everybody recognises that we have been using large quantities of chemicals on the land in order to eradicate pests and for fertilizer reasons. If we could use much less, as the organic people do, but on the other hand keep up the levels of production which the organic people are unable to do, that would be a very healthy synthesis and that's something I would like to see.

Manisha Tank:
Neil Thomas, Penzance: Lord Sainsbury, the government science minister, has invested millions in GM technology as well as donating �9 million to the Labour Party. What chance has the public got against a government who have already decided we will have GM crops?

Professor Vivian Moses:
It was very kind of you to invite me to answer these questions and I am doing so as a bio-technologist, not as an expert on government. I don't know Lord Sainsbury, I don't know the Government and I can't tell you the answer to that. I don't know what chance the people have. But this is a democracy and people have a right to express their views and the Government has said that. We're waiting to see how the Government is going to structure this debate but it's clear that they've offered it and in some way what people say will be noted and will be heard but I don't know how and I don't know what role any particular person will play in this.