The term ‘GM food’ should be abandoned, say politicians who are calling for an extraordinary rebranding exercise.

MPs on the science and technology select committee has demanded a ‘reframing of the public conversation’ about genetically modified food.

In an inflammatory report today, it says the GM label has become a ‘lightning rod’ for fears about designer crops.

Biohazard: MPs on the science and technology select committee say GM crops, like this field of GM wheat, should be rebranded because the term has become a ‘lightning rod’ for fears about designer crops

It says the term should be reserved for plants created using the most basic form of genetic engineering, with many newer methods excluded. Anti-GM groups accused MPs of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

Peter Melchett, of the Soil Association, who gave evidence to the committee during its inquiry, said: ‘This is probably the most ridiculous recommendation to come out of any select committee in this entire Parliament. It’s insulting to the public to suggest they can be fooled that easily.’

This is probably the most ridiculous recommendation to come out of any select committee in this entire Parliament. It’s insulting to the public to suggest they can be fooled that easily

Some fear that ‘Frankenfoods’ could alter ecosystems and have hidden effects on human health.

No GM food has ever been commercially grown in Britain, kept out by a labyrinthine EU system that makes it difficult to get the required environmental licences.

But UK scientists and farmers have been campaigning for years to make the process easier.

The latest report repeats their calls and urges the Government to change its terminology.

It says: ‘GM . . . is now often used imprecisely to encompass a whole range of technologies. We recommend that the Government initiate a reframing of the public conversation by moving away from the overly simple notion of “GM” in its policies and communications.’

The authors say the term GM should only be used to describe ‘first-generation’ techniques – in which genes are taken out of one plant and moved into another.

Biologists can now work on a much finer level, editing individual strands of a plant’s DNA.

Too perfect? A farmer compares two corncobs of Montsanto's genetically engineered corn, right, with two normal corncobs on a field near the village of Badingen north of Berlin, in this 2007 file photo

The report claims the label GM ‘fails to accurately portray’ these more modern techniques.

It adds: ‘The term “GM” has become a lightning rod for much broader public anxiety . . . There is a need to reframe and widen the public debate to encourage a more productive conversation.’

Labour MP Andrew Miller, who chairs the committee, accused anti-GM groups of propagating ‘false claims’ and ‘misleading statements regarding safety’.

He said: ‘The scientific evidence is clear that crops developed using genetic modification pose no more risk to humans, animals or the environment than equivalent crops developed using more “conventional” techniques.’

Yesterday George Eustice, the Tory farming minister, told the National Farmers Union conference in Birmingham that there was a need to have a ‘grown-up conversation’ about GM, adding: ‘We should be growing these crops, and we shouldn’t allow non-scientific arguments to muddy the debate.’

But Liz O’Neill, of the campaign group GM Freeze, insisted the proposal was ludicrous.

‘Arguing about the semantics is just a smokescreen,’ she said.

‘All of the crops that are currently producing food and all the ones waiting in line within the EU approvals process are first-generation GM.