Is it safe to eat genetically modified soya beans, maize or potatoes? Who knows, but you wouldn't have gained much insight after this week's unseemly squabble as advocates for and against the technology scrambled to gain advantage from reports that modified potatoes made rats sick.

Last Monday ITN's World in Action presented scientific work from the renowned Rowett Institute in Scotland. A highly qualified and experienced scientist, Dr Arpad Pusztai, described how laboratory rats suffered health effects after being fed genetically modified potatoes.

Irish lobbies ranged against the technology - including the Green Party and Genetic Concern - immediately waded in claiming that the work showed the technology was dangerous. They called for a moratorium on the release of modified foods until safety could be guaranteed.

Monsanto, the US company running trials of modified sugar beet here, not surprisingly countered these claims, saying its products were not the same as those fed to the rats and so were perfectly safe.

By Wednesday evening the reportage took a confusing turn when Rowett announced it had suspended Dr Pusztai for providing "misleading" information and presenting incomplete work that was not ready for publication. This left the Greens and Genetic Concern to fight a rearguard action, backtracking from claims the day before that the work suggested there were human health risks.

Meanwhile, Monsanto went on a PR offensive, chastising its opponents for their rash words. Mr Colin Merritt, technical manager of biotechnology, said it was "an awful mistake, and these revelations are absolute dynamite".

A company spokesman, Mr Dan Verakis, claimed various environmental groups had "tried to promote an emotional and typical scaremongering attitude. It just goes to show that people should not over-react so quickly". He was also happy to claim that consumers had nothing to worry about from modified foods.

So who were the big losers in this big mess? Clearly Dr Pusztai (68) is a victim, wounded by a self-inflicted blow. He has been suspended from the Rowett Institute in disgrace after a previously respected 20-year tenure. His reputation is in tatters and his status as a world expert diminished.

Dr Andrew Chesson, the institute's head of research, took no joy from the exercise. "Dr Pusztai has been a leading world expert for the last 40 to 50 years, and it is difficult to believe it was an error. I really don't understand why he would do this. We are all shocked, actually."

The institute explained what he had done, mixing up two rat feeding experiments and presenting incomplete work as though it were finished. One rat group was fed modified potatoes apparently without any health effects. The sick rats had been fed ordinary potatoes to which a plant extract similar to but not the same as the substance found in the modified potatoes had been added. Having been dosed with a known poison there was no surprise at the rats' response.

The public is the next big loser. It have certainly been left confused by the conflicting claims and perhaps concerned about whether it needs to be worried about modified foods. People watched the familiar spectacle as lobbies for and against shoved forward scientists willing to promote their opposing views. Yet once again they were left without simple answers to simple questions: Can I eat this or is it going to hurt me? You say it is dangerous, or safe, but are you just trotting out your own group's claims?

The lobbies have also lost, if not this week's public relations tussle, then certainly a degree of credibility. There is little doubt that both the Greens, notably Ms Nuala Ahern MEP, and Genetic Concern were more than happy to seize on what appeared to be a breakthrough in their fight against modified foods, proof that it could harm health.

Monsanto barracked them for jumping on the bandwagon and then brushed them aside as if there was no more to be said about the matter. Yet the Greens and Genetic Concern did manage to highlight apparent weaknesses in the quality of proofs that modified foods were safe.

It emerged that companies developing modified foods were not required to do longterm animal-testing to guarantee a product's safety. Dr Pusztai argued that these tests should be carried out as a matter of course. Maybe they should if Monsanto wants to overcome the sneaking suspicions that many people have about the safety of modified products.

Monsanto's triumphalist response was also unseemly given the "collateral" damage arising from this fiasco, done both to the Rowett Institute and a formerly well-respected scientist. But this was only one skirmish in a continuing war between companies such as Monsanto and the groups ranged against them, so we can all expect to be left confused by future claims and counter-claims.

The last often forgotten loser, left cowering in a laboratory, is the scientific truth. The two lobbies attempt to use science to prove their own arguments are correct. But how can the science support these two opposite poles, that modified foods are fine and modified foods are dangerous?

The answer can be found in the use, or abuse, of the scientific information. A scientific fact is peculiar in that it could be correct today but then found wrong tomorrow.

Some facts do not change: What is the speed of light? How many moons around the Earth? How much does a kilo of water weigh? Others change as scientists learn new things. There were eight planets in our solar system until the 1930s when Pluto was discovered. New work now suggests there is yet another mini-planet beyond Pluto.

This variability makes science a consensus game. A scientist makes a claim that the Earth is round; others look at the claim to see if it is true, and eventually a consensus will emerge that yes, the Earth is round. This is not to say that there won't be someone else out there with an opposing view that the Earth might really be flat.

The modification of foods by stitching in extra DNA is relatively new, yet is here long enough for a consensus to form. Most scientists working in the field believe the modified foods produced so far are safe, but this is not to say that scientists will not continue looking for problems and health risks.

There are other scientists who argue against this general view and who make claims against modified foods. They too present scientific arguments, but their views run counter to the consensus.

Who is correct? And for how long will they remain correct? As consumers we hope the consensus position on modified foods is the right one and it probably is and will remain so. But do not be surprised if some aspect of genetically engineered food goes bad or leads to a dead end. Science is not absolute, and there are always new things to learn.