1. GM debate in Europe based on 'emotion, not evidence'
2.Sir David King's pro-GM lobbying

EXTRACTS: The evidence base to support greater use of genetically modified crops and animals developed over a period of 50 years in America must be acknowledged... the new European Union chief scientist has [said]... Anne Glover denounced the standard of the GM debate in Europe... "Indeed, you could look at North America where they have been doing an experiment on our behalf for the last 50 years by growing and eating GM crops and I don't see over that period of time what negative impact it has had."

NOTE: If North Americans had been growing and eating GM crops for the last 50 years, as Anne Glover apparently claims, they'd have first been commercialised in 1961! The first GM crop to be commercialised on any scale in North America was GM soya in 1996. No GM animals have yet been commercialised for consumption. 

That Glover should make such an ill informed statement while denouncing the standard of the GM debate, ties in with what we've heard about her time as Chief Scientist in Scotland. There people concluded that she didn't have a clue about GM crops despite her GM evangelism! This may explain why Scotland ignored her advice and introduced a moratorium on GM crop trials and commercial cultivation.
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13536-eu-chief-scientist-a-gm-evangelist- 

Glover is not alone in spouting nonsense about GM. Blair's Chief Scientist, Sir David King, made even more outrageously false claims during his evangelical promotion of GM – see item 2. 
–-
–-
1.GM debate in Europe based on 'emotion, not evidence'
Dean Carroll
Public Service Europe, 20 February 2012
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1526/gm-debate-in-europe-based-on-emotion-not-evidence

The evidence base to support greater use of genetically modified crops and animals developed over a period of 50 years in America must be acknowledged if major issues like food security are to be overcome, the new European Union chief scientist has told PublicServiceEurope.com. In her first interview on the topic since taking on the EU role, Anne Glover denounced the standard of the GM debate in Europe suggesting it was emotional rather than scientific.

A molecular biologist and former chief scientific adviser in Scotland, Glover claimed that GM had been vital in her own area of research where it had generated "understanding about how biological and environmental systems work". She added: "I can also see that healthcare and our understanding of diseases has been revolutionised. There has been an unparalleled acceleration of our knowledge generation through the use of GM, which is a fantastic thing. But people in Europe are anxious about the use of GM crops or animals and I have a concern about that because I don't see the evidence base suggesting that there is substantial risk associated with it.

"Indeed, you could look at North America where they have been doing an experiment on our behalf for the last 50 years by growing and eating GM crops and I don't see over that period of time what negative impact it has had. There is a huge body of evidence, rightly so, looking at the risk of GM. People will ask me: 'Is there no risk in eating GM crops?' Well, of course, I would never say that as I am a scientist. What I would say is that whatever you eat for dinner this evening, there is a risk in eating that. There is risk associated with conventional agriculture, organic agriculture, any form of agriculture."

Indicating that she would be an advocate of lifting some of the restraints on the use of GM, in her new role advising the European Commission on policy issues, Glover added: "Around GM, let us examine the evidence..."

[Following our flagging this up, the article was changed so that the references to "50 years" became "decades" and "15 years". Read the updated article in full here: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1526/gm-debate-in-europe-based-on-emotion-not-evidence
–-
–-
2.Sir David King's pro-GM lobbying
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/David_King

[extract only – see original for references]

King has taken every opportunity to promote genetically modified (GM) crops. Notoriously, during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme in 2007, King cited as a clear example of a GM success a so-called 'push-pull' project designed to manage pests and boost crop yields in Kenya. The project was successful. As King said, it boosted yield by 40-50 per cent. However, the project used sustainable agriculture techniques involving companion planting and did not involve GM. King's misleading claim was described by a spokesperson for the government's Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills as an "honest mistake".[13]

He used his valedictory speech at the Royal Society to focus on the case for genetically modified food. But the editor of The Lancet, Dr Richard Horton, said Sir David took his faith in science into "the realms of totalitarian paranoia" and accused him of "letting off blasts of hot and sometimes rancid air". In his online blog, Horton said:

    "If he lost the debate on GM, it was because his arguments failed to convince people. King seems biased and even antidemocratic. It seems he would prefer the media not to exist at all. That is a troubling position for the Government's chief scientist to adopt."[14] 

King also claimed to a Commons Select Committee that Britain's failure to embrace GM crops had cost the economy up to GBP4 billion but when subsequently pressed, it emerged that this was mere speculation on King's part, leading Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru to accuse King of plucking the figure "from the air".[15]

Commenting on King's departure from his post as chief scientific officer, the Daily Mail said:

    "Critics of Sir David suggest he has become 'demob happy' following his decision to stand down. Since the announcement, he has taken a more outspoken line on controversial issues such as GM..."[16] 

Another, and perhaps the most extreme, example of King employing pro-GM hyperbole was his fronting of BBC Radio 4's Street Science programme on GM crops, broadcast on 3 December 2008, in which he made a series of claims about GM crops which were subsequently shown to be completely false see transcript here and Peter Melchett's critical commentary, "Who can we trust on GM crops?", published in The Guardian on 9 December 2008.[17]

In January 2010 King made another false claim, leading to a Farmers Weekly report that began:

    "Many human lives have been lost due to the reluctance of some countries to accept genetically modified crops, former government chief scientific adviser, Sir David King has claimed. 

    "Addressing the annual City Food Lecture in London's Guildhall this week, Sir David cited the example of flood-resistant rice which had taken over five years to develop using conventional breeding techniques, when it could have been done in two using biotechnology." 

But Peter Melchett of the Soil Association pointed out back in December 2008, after King's first round of misleading statements about the rice in Street Science, that the non-appearance of a GM version of the flood-resistant rice was nothing to do with countries' "reluctance" to accept GMOs and everything to do with the fact that the scientists tried, but failed, to produce a GM version. In the end the scientists used marker assisted selection (MAS), normal breeding informed by knowledge of the genome and supported by environmentalists and organic organisations.[18]