The GM Science Review Panel said in a statement that it had found "no scientific case for ruling out all GM crops and their products, but nor does it give them blanket approval."

The issue is a politically-charged one in Britain, where a series of GM test crops have been destroyed by environmental activists and some food retailers have pledged to keep stores free of GM ingredients amid concern from consumers.

The report, by 25 scientists, noted that there had been no verifiable ill effects seen despite seven years of GM goods being consumed by both humans and livestock.

Despite the difficulty of providing further safety assurances, "on balance, the panel concludes that the risks to human health from GM crops currently on the market are very low," it said.

The government's Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King, who chaired the panel, stressed that no guarantees could be given.

"GM is not a homogenous technology on which scientists can make blanket assurances on safety," he said.

"Applications of GM technology will have to be considered on a case by case basis.

However a certain amount of risk was inevitable in such matters, he said.

"We cannot know everything but if we are paralysed by uncertainty, innovation and progress will be stifled."

At the moment GM crops are only grown in Britain on closely-monitored test sites, and a decision is expected later this year on whether the technology can be used commercially.

The report was immediately criticised by Michael Meacher, environment minister in the ruling Labour party government until he was sacked in June.

"The key point is that they say it (GM) poses no significant risk," he told BBC television.

"There is a yawning hole in this report, namely that they haven't produced the evidence to find out whether that is true or not.

Environmental group Greenpeace said the report had contained serious reservations, despite its overall conclusion.

"This committee was deliberately stacked with GM flag-wavers, but its so-called findings still come nowhere near justifying the risks," said Greenpeace chief scientist Dr Doug Parr.

"The report makes it clear there are areas of huge uncertainty."

Advocates of GM foods argue that modifications to genes allowing, for example, resistance to certain pests, could greatly increase yields and alleviate global hunger.

However opponents say the technology is being pushed forwards by big corporations without sufficient knowledge as to how GM plants might affect the rest of the environment.

TERRA.WIRE