THE Government this week gave the go-ahead in principle for a genetically modified maize crop for animal feed to be grown in Britain.

The decision led to an immediate call for a web-based land registry to be set up, showing exactly where the crop is grown.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said the introduction of GM crops into the UK could cause widespread chaos. It was imperative for all concerned that such a register was established and strictly adhered to.

"Once GM crops are grown without a proper recording system, the situation cannot be reversed," said Julian Sayers, rural spokesman at RICS.

The organisation believes the onus to provide information about the location of such crops should lie with the biotech company applying for marketing consent. The information should be available to the public at least three months before planting and based on the largest-scale OS maps.

Mark Hudson, president of the Country Land and Business Association, advised landowners to tread cautiously.

He described Defra Secretary of State Margaret Beckett's decision as "brave" and welcomed it in principle, but warned land-owners that their property and crops might be vulnerable to attack from GM opponents and also warned that the crop could pose a threat to land values.

The NFU also gave the decision a cautious welcome but asked the Government to proceed with caution.

"Farmers and growers should not be excluded from technologies that have received regulatory and scientific approval, but it is essential that systems are established to allow GM and non-GM production to co-exist," said Tim Bennett, the NFU president.

He called on the Government to take steps to protect the homes and businesses of farmers who legitimately chose to grow the new variety of maize.

"While recognising the right to legal protest, it is essential that farm businesses are offered adequate protection un-der the law as regards trespass and criminal damage," he said.

Fiona Hall, Liberal Democrat regional spokesman for the North-East, criticised the decision, saying it was made only four days after a report from the cross-party environmental audit committee had called for major new field tests before any GM crops were grown commercially in Britain.

The decision showed disdain for the MPs and for public opinion, which was overwhelmingly against it.

"The decision to go ahead will have irreversible consequences for the environment, farmers and consumers," she said.

Mrs Beckett said she believed the decision was correct because it was precautionary, but based on evidence. Extra conditions would have to be met and applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

She confirmed the Government's continued commitment to organic farming and recognised that sector's concern.

Consultation would also take place about compensating non-GM farmers who suffered financial loss through no fault of their own. That compensation should be paid by the GM sector.

There was no scientific base for a blanket approval or blanket ban on the uses of GM.

"Safety, human health and the environment must remain at the heart of our regulatory regime and rigorous and robust monitoring must be maintained," said Mrs Beckett.

She did not anticipate any commercial cultivation of GM maize before spring 2005 at the earliest.