Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Anti-GM groups accused of ‘ignoring evidence’

Professor Anne Glover was ousted as the European Commission’s chief scientific officer in January EU

Tom Bawden
Tuesday 03 February 2015 20:38 GMT
Comments
Professor Anne Glover was ousted as the European Commission’s chief scientific officer in January
Professor Anne Glover was ousted as the European Commission’s chief scientific officer in January (EU)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Greenpeace and other anti-GM groups have been accused of “ignoring and fabricating evidence” in their campaign to block the development of genetically modified crops.

Professor Anne Glover, who was ousted as the European Commission’s chief scientific officer in January in a controversial victory for the campaigners, said she was frustrated at the behaviour of many organisations during her three years in the job.

“I am deeply disappointed with them. Those NGOs [non-governmental organisations] were NGOs that I used to trust and I think many citizens do trust – they are like the unelected voice of citizens. I think that they have ignored the evidence and they have fabricated a scenario,” said Professor Glover. She added their campaigning was designed to deliberately misrepresent her role by greatly exaggerating her power in the GM debate and suggest a lack of accountability.

In an open letter sent last July to her incoming boss, EC President Jean-Claude Juncker, groups including Greenpeace complained that her role was “unaccountable, intransparent and controversial” and called for her post to be made redundant.

Mr Juncker said in November he would not renew Professor Glover’s contract when it expired at the end of 2015 and was eliminating the role.

A scientist examines a genetically modified crop (Getty)
A scientist examines a genetically modified crop (Getty) (Getty Images)

Her criticisms of Greenpeace were echoed by GM scientists yesterday, who said that the science should be allowed to play a much bigger role in establishing the fate of this highly contentious and potentially revolutionary food-producing technology.

Professor Joe Perry, chair of the European Food Safety Authority’s GM panel, said: “Professor Glover is correct to criticise those NGOs that encourage or refuse to condemn the trashing of crops designed to supply robust scientific evidence for risk assessment. There can be no excuses for such medieval attitudes.”

Professor Nigel Brown, of the University of Edinburgh, said: “It is strange that an organisation [Greenpeace] interested in saving the environment would be against scientific advances that will allow replacement of petrochemicals and the clean-up of industrial contamination.”

Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace’s chief scientific and policy adviser, defended the groups’ actions.

“The reason Greenpeace and 28 other NGOs called for the EU chief scientific adviser to be scrapped was not because of a disagreement over GM food,” he said.

“The problem lay in how this role lacked transparency, concentrated too much influence into the hands of just one person, making them vulnerable to industry lobbying, and allowed political interference in a process which should have been driven by science.”

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in