Both sides of the debate over genetically modified crops stand accused of spinning the results of recent trials.

Speaking on Tuesday, the president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford, argued that while the research should have prompted a debate on the future of farming, it was instead used to fuel both sides of the argument.

Published in October, the data revealed that while the planting of GM maize benefited wildlife, GM beet and rape had adverse effects.

"The experiments demonstrated that GM crop technology may be applied in ways that are better for biodiversity than conventional practices, or alternatively may be used to further intensify agriculture with a corresponding negative effect on farmland wildlife," said Lord May.

"To generalise and declare 'all GM is bad' or 'all GM is good' for the environment as a result of these experiments is a gross over-simplification, but statements from both sides in the GM propaganda war have claimed 'victory' based on these findings.

"Rather than closing the case for or against GM crops, these results should drive society to ask more questions, not just about GM crops, but about agriculture more generally.

"They should be used as a catalyst for a debate about the future of modern agriculture."

His comments came ahead of the Royal Society's submission of evidence to the government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

The Society argues that it is not the crops which have an effect on the wildlife, but the weedkillers and various products used on those crops which can be detrimental.

"The most pressing question arising from the evaluations is not whether GM plans are better or worse for the environment than conventional crops, but instead what type of modern agriculture we want," added the crossbench peer.

"If appropriately developed, GM crops could be used deliberately to improve the environment. But first, much larger questions need to be answered about the kind of world we want to live in.

"Social and environmental choices about agricultural practices and their impact need to be made before we look to science and technology to help provide the solution.

"But if it chooses, society could use these results to persuade companies to produce crops that are better for the environment."