This is why the report's safety assessment matches almost exactly with the published opinions of Monsanto's Science Director (Europe):

In the House of Commons on Thursday, Joan Ruddock asked the new Environment Minister Elliot Morley if he was concerned that the food safety section had been written by a Monsanto employee. Morley did not reply.

The verdict of former Environment Minister Michael Meacher:

"This is just a rehash of existing reports and includes no data of systematic trials to test GM food safety. This is Iraq Mark 2: there is no supporting evidence for action, the public don't like it and the Government seems determined to over-rule all opposition."

1. Dissenting adviser quits GM panel
2. GM crops threaten wildlife, official scientific review decides
---
1. Dissenting adviser quits GM panel
Robin McKie and Mark Townsend
The Observer, Sunday July 20, 2003
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1002057,00.html

A key member of the government science review panel on genetically modified crops has resigned - because he feared his academic funding might be withdrawn if he continued to raise objections to GM foods.

Carlo Leifert, a world expert in organic food production, stepped down from Tony Blair's GM science review panel amid allegations that he was facing fierce pressure to toe a pro-biotech line.

The panel's keenly awaited report on GM crops is due to be published tomorrow. A copy of its executive summary, seen by The Observer, indicates that the panel could find no evidence that eating modified foods poses a threat to health and concludes that GM crops are 'very unlikely to invade our countryside or become problematic plants'.

However, the panel stops short of giving blanket approval to the growing of GM crops in the UK, concluding that plans to grow modified plants should be approached on a case-by-case basis.

The report was welcomed yesterday by the agro-biotech industry, but condemned by green activists and politicians, including former Environment Minister Michael Meacher. 'This is just a rehash of existing reports and includes no data of systematic trials to test GM food safety. This is Iraq Mark 2: there is no supporting evidence for action, the public don't like it and the Government seems determined to over-rule all opposition,' he said.

For several weeks, the panel's chairman, the government chief scientist David King, and his committee members have been feverishly exchanging emails and letters in a bid to present a unanimous report. Many panel members doubted if King would succeed and concluded that there would have to be a minority report over the GM health issue that would be attached to the main document. 'It got very, very near the knuckle last week,' said one member.

However, King appears to have adroitly avoided this problem - but at the expense of Leifert, who resigned as the panel began preparing its report last month. Sources told  The Observer that he felt increasingly isolated after raising repeated concerns about the safety and environmental impacts of GM crops and began worrying he might lose grants if he kept questioning the technology. However, there is no evidence to suggest any panel member threatened him over this.

At that time, Leifert was seeking a share of a £14 million EU grant to research organic and sustainable farming in Britain. 'The final straw came when he was told that Andrew Cockburn of Monsanto had been commissioned to write the first draft of its consideration of GM safety issues,' said the source.

In the House of Commons on Thursday, Joan Ruddock asked the new Environment Minister Elliot Morley if he was concerned that the food safety section had been written by a Monsanto employee. Morley did not reply. 

Charlie Kronick, Greenpeace spokesman, said the episode was 'disgraceful'. 

The leaking of the report threatens to cloud deliberations over the future of GM crops in Britain. 'This report shows that GM foods appear to be safe to eat and safe to grow,' said Paul Rylott, chairman of the agricultural biotechnology council, which represents GM crop companies. 'We fully accept that each new crop must be regulated separately. We are not asking for blanket approval, just common sense.'
---
2.GM crops threaten wildlife, official scientific review decides
By Severin Carrell
The Independent on Sunday, 20 July 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=425892

The widespread planting of GM crops in Britain could severely damage wildlife such as birds and insects, an expert scientific review will warn tomorrow.

An inquiry chaired by Professor Sir David King, the Prime Minister's chief scientific adviser, will endorse fears that growing some types of herbicide-resistant GM crops could have a significant impact on the countryside.

Some GM crops being considered for Britain, such as sugar beet and oilseed rape, are designed to survive the use of so-called "broad spectrum" herbicides that wipe out other weeds and plants.

But that would threaten wildlife, such as skylarks which feed on the "fat-hen" weed growing in sugar beet fields, creating the "green deserts" feared by many naturalists. "This is perhaps the most serious potential harm," the report says.

The warning will be one of the strongest conclusions from an exhaustive "science review" being published by Professor King tomorrow, which will also state that current GM foods are safe to eat.

Because of the perceived threat to wildlife, Professor King's committee will write an up-date report after the results of trials into GM maize, beet and oilseed rape come out in September.

The report also suggests that a new generation of weedkiller-resistant superweeds could be created in the future unless the Government and farming regulators are extremely careful about where and when different GM crops are used.

But it says this risk - based on the fear that GM genes which are resistant to different weedkillers could "stack up" in weeds - is only likely to arise in five to 10 years and only if GM crops become widespread in Britain.

At present, because few GM crops are likely to be planted in Britain due to public hostility, the risk of creating superweeds is seen as low.

But the document, agreed late last week by a panel of 24 leading scientists, biotech industry executives and naturalists, is likely to disappoint many anti-GM campaigners and environmentalists. It is understood to be more neutral and non-committal about the potential problems than a critical report on the economic value of GM crops released by the Prime Minister's Strategic Policy Unit earlier this month.

It will also say that GM crops should be planted in the UK, and licensed on a case-by-case basis.

The Downing Street document, which suggested there was little short-term economic or consumer advantage to planting GM crops, has led Tony Blair to substantially rethink his pro-GM stance. He is now said to be more cautious about supporting the commercial planting of GM crops in Britain.