Some Classic Gloverisms
Date Added to website 20th February 2014
Anne Glover, who is a microbiologist by training, has now so frequently uttered complete nonsense on the matter of GMOs that she now apparently believes her own hype. At every opportunity she demonstrates both her ignorance of the scientific literature and her bias towards the GMO industry. It is clear that her utterances are politically motivated, and are a part of the Barroso / EC campaign to obtain greater acceptance of GMOs within the EU -- so quite cynically he uses Glover's position as his Chief Scientific Adviser to provide the "scientific validation" for his views. It seems that she is quite happy to oblige. Note that she frequently refers to "prestigious scientific academies" and "independent scientists" in support of her pontifications..........
Glover's key statements relating to GMO safety are to be found in these two very
carefully crafted pieces -- dressed up as interviews -- and published by Euractiv:
http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/chief-scientifc-adviser-policy-p-interview-514074
http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/eu-chief-scientist-unethical-use-interview-530692
Some of her classic utterances are as follows -- culled from just a brief session of googling:
"But she (Glover) said that scientific evidence needed to play a stronger role in
policymaking, firing a warning shot at countries that have banned GMOs. “I think we
could really get somewhere in Europe if when evidence is used partially, there were
an obligation on people to say why they have rejected evidence,” she said."
http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/commission-science-supremo-endor-news-514072
Comment from GM-Free Cymru: This one might well come back and bite her........
"Glover, who was previously chief scientific adviser to the Scottish Government,
said “not a single piece of scientific evidence” existed to support the claims by
critics that food produced from GM crops is unsafe.
http://www.scotsman.com/business/food-drink-agriculture/madness-of-opposition-to-gm-crops-says-glover-1-3102539
"..........I am 99.99 per cent certain from the scientific evidence that there are
no health issues with food produced from GM crops. Just about every scientist I know
supports this view. Opposition to GM, and the benefits it can bring, is a form of
madness I don’t understand.”
http://www.scotsman.com/business/food-drink-agriculture/madness-of-opposition-to-gm-crops-says-glover-1-3102539
"......not one single piece of evidence emerging that would show GM as being more
risky than conventional plant breeding methods."
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/business/farming/news/enough-known-to-prove-gm-foods-are-safe-claims-glover-1.133175
"There is no substantiated evidence that I have ever seen that GM crops are harmful
to the environment, animals or people”.
http://www.farminguk.com/news/Embrace-GM-crops-campaigner-tells-consumers_27288.html
"The lobbyists and pressure groups have almost been responsible for the GM stalemate
by causing this withdrawal from evidence and this acceptance of the emotional
argument."
http://www.policyreview.eu/editors-blog-gm-frankenstein-technology-or-saviour-of-the-human-race/
"If we look at evidence from [more than] 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods
globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health,
animal health, or environmental health."
http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/chief-scientifc-adviser-policy-p-interview-514074
"There is no evidence that GM technologies are any riskier than conventional
breeding technologies and this has been confirmed by thousands of research projects.
Food produced with GM technology is very common in other parts of the world, without
any evidence that this has been harmful to the people that consumed it or to the
environment at large."
http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/eu-chief-scientist-unethical-use-interview-530692
"As EASAC has published a timely (2013) report on crop genetic improvement
technologies (see
http://www.easac.eu/biosciences/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article/planting-the.html
), I would like to quote from this as follows as it reflects my views..."
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/open_letters/Open_letter17Feb2014.html
Note: this is the classic ploy of citing another supposedly authoritative source so
as to avoid making a direct and attributable statement of her own views.
"I am sorry that you reject the evidence of a broad range of independent scientists (your reference to EASAC and EFSA) and I do not see the evidence that leads you to your conclusions." Recent letter (18 February 2014) to GM-Free Cymru
"Dozens of independent reviews, including by Europe's most prestigious science
academies, have shown that the Séralini study is hopelessly flawed. It's simply bad
science and the reputation of the journal that published it has suffered as a
result."
http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/eu-chief-scientist-unethical-use-interview-530692
"The conclusions of the report are based on the best possible evidence and I endorse
its conclusions whole-heartedly."
http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/eu-chief-scientist-unethical-use-interview-530692
Note: the report to which she refers is the "Planting the future" report of the
European Academies of Science Advisory Council (EASAC)
http://www.easac.eu/home/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article/planting-the.html