GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

2014 articles

GMWatch responds to Sense About Science over its defence of chief scientific advisor role

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 25 July 2014
Created: 25 July 2014
Last Updated: 25 July 2014
Twitter

Concentration of power in one person does a disservice to science

Comment by Claire Robinson

The pro-corporate lobby group Sense About Science has defended the position of chief scientific advisor to the EU Commission in the face of criticism from NGOs, including GMWatch, who asked for the position to be scrapped.

SAS has written to the new EU Commissioner, Jean-Claude Juncker, to ask him not to abolish the post.

SAS's defence of the position isn't surprising, as it claims credit for initiating discussions about setting up the position in the first place.

Unfortunately, however, SAS's defence of the position is misleading in the extreme. SAS heads its article, "Scientific scrutiny in Europe is essential". It is a sentiment with which the signatory NGOs wholeheartedly agree.

However, speaking for GMWatch, one of the NGOs that asked for the position to be scrapped, our concern is that the first and current occupier of the post, Anne Glover, has used her position not to provide independent "scientific scrutiny" but to misrepresent the state of scientific knowledge and to support the interests of corporations, even when this endangers public health and the environment. For example, she has repeated claims that GMOs are safe but failed to respond to a statement signed by 297 qualified scientists and experts that there was no consensus on GMO safety.

As evidence of GMO safety, Glover referred in a media interview to the fact that Americans had been growing and eating GM crops "for the last 15 years… and I don't see over that period of time what negative impact it has had". Glover refers to this as "an experiment on our behalf". This is of course ludicrously unscientific. American consumption of GMOs is not an "experiment", since GMOs are not labelled in the US so consumption cannot be tracked. There no control group and no one is monitoring the effects. Even if problems were noted, there would be no way of tying them to GMO consumption in the absence of labelling and monitoring of consumption.

As for the effects of growing GM crops, only someone who had their head firmly buried in the sand for the past couple of decades could fail to notice the terrible effects of glyphosate-resistant superweeds on US farmers. A the last count, these superweeds had taken over 61 million acres of farmland.

GMOs not the only concern

SAS claims that the NGOs opposing the role of chief scientific advisor are doing so "specifically because they disagree with Professor Glover's advice" on GMOs. But this is incorrect. Glover's performance on GMOs is only cited in the NGOs' letter as one example of her lamentable record.

Several of the signatory NGOs who asked for the post of chief scientific advisor to be scrapped are not concerned primarily with GMOs but with chemicals toxicity, especially endocrine disruption. There is concern among NGOs that when it comes to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), the EU Commission is ignoring scientific research in order to protect industry's interests, not those of the public.

For example, Pesticide Action Network found that the Commission had been plotting a route for EDCs to escape regulation.

We don't know what role, if any, Glover's advice played in this ruse, as requests for information regarding which advice she has given to the Commission were refused. Transparency and accountability, it seems, are not part of the remit of the chief scientific advisor.

If Glover and the Commission wish to restore public trust in the role of chief scientific advisor, they should begin by issuing a statement that shows they are aware of the vast body of scientific studies on EDCs and that they understand the magnitude of the threat that they pose. This includes serious diseases like cancer and birth defects, which can arise even from very low exposures that are currently not tested in regulatory safety assessments.

Glover could then progress to issuing a science-based response to the 297 scientists who voiced concern over GMO safety, and a response to the many scientific studies summarised in the report GMO Myths and Truths. So far, Glover has failed to respond to either.

To be fair to Glover, she has no relevant research background that would enable her to comprehend the findings of studies on GMO safety or on EDC toxicity. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect any one person to be an expert on – or even competent in – all the areas of scientific expertise relevant to the European Commission's decision-making. The fundamental problem is not with Glover but with the pretence that a single person has the knowledge and understanding to represent the state of the science in the many areas that affect public and environmental health.

It's time to end the pretence and scrap this dishonest and dangerous role.

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design