Statement of the bleeding obvious

Less well known is SOTBO - 'statement of the bleeding obvious'.

As SOTBOs go they don't come more obvious than that of a European Commission official describing Anne Glover's time as chief scientific adviser to the Commission as a 'difficult experiment'.

This comment came from the head of the Commission's own joint research service (JRC), which was never happy with an outside scientist having the ear of the then Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso. Given that most governments have a chief scientific adviser it seems bizarre to refer to this as an experiment. But the fact remains that the current president, Jean Claude Juncker, is happier keeping this debate within the grasp of the Commission.

The big issue during that 'difficult experiment' was Anne Glover's wish for an open debate on genetically modified (GM) crops, which most scientists would advocate. However Commission officials are happier kicking this issue into touch, while maintaining there are realistic alternatives for Europe while the rest of the world uses GM to increase agricultural productivity and reduce costs.

This issue is back on the agenda now because the Commission has launched a public consultation on how science can deliver a supply of safe, plentiful and sustainable food to meet the needs of a growing global population. This is for an international conference in October, when some of the officials convinced that having a chief scientific adviser was 'a difficult experiment' will have the opportunity to explain why Europe, alone in the developed world, believes it can come up with cost effective ways to boost food output without using the GM technology adopted by the rest of the world.

This coincided with the leaking of a report suggesting the Commission will soon agree that member states can ban the import of GM ingredients, even if they have already been approved in Europe. This would be on top of recent rules that allow member states to opt not to grow GM crops, even if they have been approved through the EU process.

This is effectively an admission that the EU will never reach agreement on GM crops. It is being presented by the Commission as a decision 'in the interests of democracy' - but for a Commission president committed to EU-wide decisions on all major issues this really is a cop out.

It is perhaps why Juncker did not want a scientific adviser to highlight that this is a strategy than lacks any scientific rigour. Four agricultural super-powers - the United States, Canada, Brazil and Argentina - have already protested officially over this plan. If the Commission presses ahead they may seek a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling as to whether Brussels is imposing an illegal, non-scientific, barrier to trade.

The Commission has acknowledged that allowing member states to decide whether or not to grow GM crops or allow their import is not about science, but about social concerns. This is an honest admission, but it is a difficult stance to defend either in the WTO or when Brussels talks about the need for agriculture to be productive and sustainable to feed a growing world population.

Its woes over its anti-science stance on GM crops - highlighted when it refused to renew Professor Glover's contract as scientific adviser - has been made even worse by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This represents the world's major economies and in a recent report said that there was no risk to humans from animals fed on GM rations.

The OECD described this as a 'clear conclusion;' from the thousands of scientific documents available on this subject. This effectively removes any justification the Commission might have had for its stance. It has now had to admit that its position on GM foods is based on subjective rather than objective criteria - and that will cause it problems if this is challenged through the WTO.

Despite being a federalist, Juncker has had to allow member states to do their own thing, meaning there is no longer an effective role for the Commission in the GM debate. It is hard to believe that from an economic or political standpoint this is a better position that the open debate Anne Glover encouraged when she was the EU's chief scientific adviser.