But they rebelled against lack of choice for consumers, saying they were consulted too late.

The 14 men and women from all walks of life who agreed to take part in a "citizen's conference" -- the first of its kind in France -- said after quizzing experts they saw no immediate risks to health in the products but had reservations about those already on the market.

The recommendations, following a two-day debate organised by parliament, are not binding but are politically significant, since the government has promised to heed them before deciding on one of the most emotional public issues of the decade.

"Based on current knowledge there are no appreciable risks to humans through eating genetically modified organisms," the panel, chosen by a polling organisation, said in a report read out to a packed news conference.

However, it found European laws on labelling were "inadequate and inapplicable" and complained the public had been consulted too late since two strains of genetically altered corn and soya were already on sale.

"Consumers have never asked for genetically modified organisms," the popular panel noted.

It recognised advantages in using the lab-doctored grain to increase production and cure hunger -- but questioned whether developing countries would have access to a technology pioneered in the United States.

France is Europe's largest corn producer and farmers want to boost yields by using the revolutionary crops which are marketed as pest-resistant. One-fifth of corn grown in the United States now comes from genetically altered seed.

But French polls show a public uneasy about the safety of experimental food on a continent still scarred by the 1996 crisis over mad cow disease in beef.

Both the European Union and United States are pressing France to admit three new varieties of genetic grain and oilseed, saying delays are blocking their use in the rest of the 15-nation EU bloc.

But the jury members, who went through a crash course in science to prepare for their task, raised doubts over this first generation of genetically modified crops.

These, they said, had needlessly made use of genes that can in theory increase resistance to medical antibiotics. The next generation would avoid this.

Socialist politician Jean-Yves Le Deaut, who chaired the debate and will draw on it for an official report, agreed.

"It's a 'yes' verdict but with provisos. They are saying, let's get away from the inconvenience of the first generation of products and do it better," he said.

The EU authorised gene soya with labelling conditions in 1996. A strain of pest-resistant maize developed by Swiss Novartis is also on sale.

Manufacturers are awaiting decisions on two types of maize produced by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Monsanto and German agrochemical company AgrEvo and a rapeseed produced by Plant Genetic Systems, which is part of AgrEvo.

Greenpeace and other environmental groups want a moratorium on all new approvals.

The people's jury was split on the idea of a ban.

Jury member Evelyne Martin, a 30-year-old housewife, said some of the panel had wanted a moratorium on the use of gene crops but others wanted new varieties studied case-by-case.

The rift allowed lobbyists from both sides, briefly forced to the sidelines as members of the public faced television cameras, to emerge from the conference claiming victory.

"We expect the government will take the panel's views into account and give us the green light," said Daniel Rahier, public affairs manager for Monsanto France.

Greens party representative Joel Chenais told journalists: "This is not a carte blanche for the industry. You cannot say this is a favourable opinion; it is very mixed."