International Rice Research Insitute (irri, committed to providing new options for poor rice farmers).

"The IRRI's only interest in the future of GM rice is to ensure that developing countries, which will ultimately make their own decisions on whether or not to adopt GM technologies, have all the facts and expertise necessary to do so in a way that will benefit their rice farmers and consumers."

Monsanto (an international GM food association) .

"The future is far brighter for developing countries like China, India and South Africa, which see GM as one tool in the toolbox in their fight against hunger, than it is for EU farmers in their efforts simply to remain in agriculture."

CropGen. "Choosing gene technology will be an important tool for much of the world's agriculture. It will increase yields for growing populations on ever-scarcer farmland, improve nutrition for under-nourished people, facilitate farming on poor land and in harsh climates, keep the quality of the harvest and keep prices low."

American Soy Bean Association.

"The future we envision for biotechnology-derived foods...is one in which food consumers - especially in Europe - realize that biotechnology-derived foods are in general safer for consumers and the environment than those from tried and tested traditional varieties."

Steven Hill, Department of plant sciences, Oxford University.

"The use of GM in agriculture will increase in the future, although I think that the pace with which it is adopted in Europe will be slower than in the rest of the world. I think that there are many exciting potential applications for GM: an enhanced ability for crops to grow in harsh environments; major reductions in the chemical input (pesticides and fertilizers) that are required for high-yield agriculture; significant improvements in 'biomass' crops for energy production and many others."

Soil Association.

"We do not see any future for genetic modification. The consumer doesn't want it. The third world doesn't need it. The future is organic." Liberal Democrats.

"Until the scientific results come in over the next few years we really cannot be sure of the future of GM foods. They have huge potential for increasing yields and feeding the world, but this should not be done at the expense of people's health and the environment."

Prince Charles.

"We simply do not know the long-term consequences of releasing plants bred in this way, for human health or for the wider environment ... once genetic material has been released into the environment it cannot be recalled ... if something does go badly wrong we will be faced with clearing up a kind of pollution which is actually self-perpetuating." National Farmers Union.

"Following scientific assessment of safety on a case-by-case basis, GM technology should be judged by market forces. Products should be labelled so that consumers can choose to eat GM or not. For meaningful labelling, GM and non-GM products must be segregated. We hope farmers will have access to new technologies and innovative products, provided they are safe and don't damage the environment."

Consumer Association.

"Technologies used to produce foods and food ingredients need to be controlled and monitored to ensure safety in the short and longer-term. The moral and ethical concerns of consumers must be taken into account by policy-makers. It is also important that GM foods are clearly labelled and traceable to ensure consumer choice as to whether to eat GM ingredients or not."

Genewatch.

"For GM crops and foods to go ahead, four conditions should be fulfilled: legal liability for harm to the environment or neighbouring farmers' business; full labelling to give people the choice of whether they want to eat GM foods; separation distances between GM and non-GM crops or organic farming which preserves the non-GM option; public participation in decisions about how and whether GM crops and foods are developed."

Conservative Party.

"Recent reports from the Royal Society and English Nature make it clear that more independent research into the safety of GM crops is urgently needed. There is no current scientific evidence that eating GM foods is dangerous. However, consumers must be aware of what they are buying and product labelling must be clear and honest. The concerns of farmers and consumers regarding GM crops must be addressed. Future decisions must be based on sound science and not political spin."

Food Standards Agency.

"The future of GM is dependent on consumer demand for products produced using GM technology."

Women`s Institute.

"The government should protect consumers, farmers and the environment from premature commercialisation of GM crops and the import of GM food products. More research is needed into the long-term impacts of exposure to GM organisms. Genetic pollution is irreversible and potentially a major threat to biodiversity. Farmers must have the right to grow seeds that are 100 percent uncontaminated and consumers must have right to buy food that is 100 percent uncontaminated by GM organisms. Developing countries must have the right and the ability to protect their farmers, consumers and environment from the potential dangers of this technology, and have support to research and implement locally appropriate resource-conserving farming techniques."

Nuffield Foundation, Working Party.

"GM crops represent an important new technology which ought to have the potential to do much good in the world provided that proper safeguards are maintained or introduced. All those who are involved in developing the new technology… need to: ensure that ethical concerns are taken account of; avoid further harm to the environment; harness GM to meet the most urgent food needs of the world as well as commercial benefit; make impartial information widely available to the public and fully respect consumer choice."

Dr Mark Tester - Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge.

"We can afford to oppose GM crops - our food is already cheap and plentiful. However, in the next 50 years, there will be 3 billion more to feed, mostly in the cities of developing countries. If present economic disparities are not to widen, the food for these new people should be grown in the developing countries. This increased food production will require many approaches, and GM will probably be one useful technology. Well-fed Westerners have no right to deny others possibilities to improve their lot. I hope we won't, and I hope that GM crops will be used to increase stress tolerance or disease resistance where this is needed."

Here is a list of questions most people ask when they see GM food. Read the questions and the answers. Provide your comments. Are the points, mentioned here, urgent for Russia? Dramatize a dialogue, in which you and your partner have to discuss these issues.

What happens if I eat GM food?

Relax, no one has ever reported any bad effects as a direct result of eating GM food. We have nothing to fear from eating genetically modified DNA because we consume animal and plant DNA all the time in our food. GM DNA itself cannot be toxic. Genes make proteins, and these can be toxic. But food safety tests are designed to find toxins in GM as well as non-GM food. In the UK, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) controls food safety tests.

There has already been a case of scientists finding a toxin in GM food. The food was a new variety of GM soya engineered with a gene from Brazil nuts to make it more nutritious. However, it was found to be allergenic during tests. The new brand of soya was abandoned as a result. Supporters of GM say this reinforces the stringency of testing procedures for GM food and its overall safety.

Genetic modification might even be able to improve our food. Science could enhance the taste of our food and its shelf life. Our food could also be engineered to contain extra nutrients or medicines, additives known as called nutraceuticals.

How can I tell if my food is GM-free?

A label telling you if your food contains GM ingredients is required by law in the UK. However some colourings and flavourings derived from GM crops don't need to be labelled. Conventionally grown food can be contaminated by genetically modified DNA up to 1% before it requires a GM label. Very little GM food is on sale in the UK. Only approved foods can be sold and the GM content must be shown on the label. European labelling laws only require food to be labelled as 'GM' if it still contains the genetically modified DNA or proteins produced by the DNA. If these are no longer present in the food, ingredient or flavouring then it doesn't require a GM label.

For example, GM soya destined to become an ingredient in vegetable oil does not need to be labelled. During the refining and processing of the oil, the genetically modified DNA and protein products are destroyed. The resulting cooking oil is chemically identical to oils made from non-GM ingredients. However, the European Commission is looking at proposals to extend GM labelling to include any food, ingredient or flavouring produced by a GM organism.

There is also a detailed description produced by Greenpeace. It grades products in three categories:

• Red. This category is for products where suppliers could not provide Greenpeace with assurances that the food doesn't contain GM ingredients.

• Yellow. This colour is for food from animals reared on GM feed, but where suppliers are committed to removing it.

• Green. These foods are from suppliers that have provided written assurances that their foods do not contain GM food.

Does organic always mean GM-free?

Generally yes. Organic food is defined as food that is:

• completely free from all GM organisms

• produced without artificial pesticides and fertilisers

• from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs

To get an organic label in the UK and the European Union, food must contain 95% organic ingredients by weight. The other 5% can come only from a special list of tested non-organic ingredients and must contain no GM ingredients whatsoever.

EU regulations on organic food require that anyone who wishes to produce organic food must register with a ceritification body. In the UK, there are eight such bodies, the biggest of which is the Soil Association.

These bodies are policed by the UKROFS, the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards, which is part of the government.

Most organic food producers around the world conform to voluntary standards set down by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). Although there are differences in the criteria used for classifying organic food in different countries, standards around the world are very similar.

The UK government supports European Union plans for a 'GM-free' label. However, the government says that an allowance for up to 1% GM contamination may still have to be applied to make this workable.

How can I tell if meat has come from animals reared on GM feed?

There is no scientific evidence that GM DNA can pass from animal feed into meat, eggs or milk. Animals in the UK are already eating GM animal feed made from maize, beet and soya.

Most animal feed is processed from the original GM crop. But the genetically modified DNA is mostly destroyed by processing. This would make the GM feed chemically identical to conventionally grown feed. World Trade Organisation guidelines tell suppliers they don't need to label GM animal feed if the chemical make up is the same as non-GM feed. But European Union studies found no evidence that GM DNA survives an animal's digestive system. So it is unlikely to be present in our food.

Nevertheless, some supermarkets and restaurants are moving away from stocking meat and dairy products from animals fed on GM feed. The UK government supports plans for manufactured animal feed to be labelled in the same way as food, by identifying any GM ingredients.