Kot poroča Guardian je Evropska komisija v trenutku, ko je cel svet proslavljal velik uspeh evropske znanosti, ki ji je uspelo s sondo pristati na kometu (Rosetta), ukinila funkcijo Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission.
Za ukinitev so se zavzemali Greenpeace in podobni "zeleni lobisti", ker jim niso bila všeč stališča trenutne svetovalke predsednika Anne Glover glede GSO-jev. Takole so zapisali v pozivu Junkerju:
"To the media, the current CSA presented one-sided, partial opinions in the debate on the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture, repeatedly claiming that there was a scientific consensus about their safety..." (pismo Junkerju pdf).
Na obtožbe glede domnevne pristranskosti svetovalke so se z več peticijami odzvale znanstvene inštitucije in strokovnjaki, ki so zavrnili obtožbe:
"As organisations and individuals who share a commitment to improving the evidence available to policy makers, we cannot stress strongly enough our objection to any attempt to undermine the integrity and independence of scientific advice received at the highest level of the European Commission. ...
Tule navajam še nekaj zaključkov pravkar opravljene metaanaliza vpliva GSO-jev v znanstveni reviji PLOS ONE:
We note that the nine NGOs are opposing not just this position in general but specifically because they disagree with Professor Glover's advice on genetically modified crops and organisms. Professor Glover’s advice can only be based on the conclusions of leading scientific bodies, which is - in the words of a recent European Commission report, that "GMOs are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies". This fundamental conclusion is reiterated by, among others, the scientific academies of Africa, Europe and elsewhere, the World Health Organisation and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ...
Policy makers or lobbyists who seek to remove scientists because they don’t like their findings or advice do so at the peril of their citizens."
(Scientific scrutiny in Europe is essential · Sense about Science)
Results: On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.
Odzivi: Expert reaction to news about abolition of post of CSA to European Commission | Science Media Centre
Conclusion: The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology. (PLOS ONE: A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops)