coming your way in just a moment. do you thousand and two the top ten drug companies in america made more profits than four hundred ninety of america's wealthiest companies combined helping raise profits are cancer drugs which in two thousand and five alone rose nearly sixteen percent compared to three percent for other prescriptions. today an average cancer drug prescription costs nearly one thousand six hundred dollars a month. the pharmaceutical industry spends about fourteen percent of their budget on research and development and about thirty one percent for marketing in a ministration. in fact there are more pharmaceutical industry lobbyists in washington d.c. the numbers of congress. food and drugs act in the united states and then food and drugs act in canada are not being a budget buy this is a very serious problem this is been the fight that i have fought for now for the

last twenty years in canada and together with my colleagues and my union and a lot of other people and as a result of breeze three of us automatically were fired by health canada four years that took to build up this case and ultimately fired us and saying we should buy everything that america busses and we're saying we cannot we are a country we are sovereign country we have a sovereign law none of us refused to conduct our work if this insubordination to pass drugs of questionable safety or harmful products then of course we want to be in support if that's the way it is let the canadian government say then that this is what they're fighting us for the companies pressure to get is fired this way the longer the weird the more time they get.

to continue doing what they're doing they have got at least ten years it may take longer to keep selling the same stuff and damaging the health of people who make profit on the backs of people's health that was the insubordinate. sked the same chemical companies that brought us pesticides chlorine and dioxins have known barked on a new frontier biotechnology. this new technology has been used to transfer genes

from one organism to another and has subsequently enabled companies to patent and own the organisms that they genetically modify that means that seeds plants and even trees which are modified using this technology can be privately owned by corporations for the first time in history. all right owsley there's a lot there much. i want there are some say. they said well yeah we got some but the image that expensive seat is how much all that a lot got what it was now but they was quite a bit over and. i didn't silo graeme with them they didn't ask me to style it because somebody asked them bottom back somebody had done bottom and killed them out and bought a mat. so i gonna plant this and you can be white glass bottle top but that's all i need you know and that's i want there and in that plant. and

then. with glass feet i don't i don't like colorado as most honest. but anyway. and that was when most solid come down on me. you know they said they got a patent on it there's no you can't have a bad mother nature bottom line. so the guy that. he forgot how do you sign a license just said here's a new thank you seed and the slave was brought back by somebody else. somebody done signed off on he want to get rid of because they didn't want to keep him the most well the most not a lawyer. or they do you see as a star. that i don't never read a bag. because i'm too busy working and stuff like it and then trying to keep it

running here is the most. that was flown. by i want to most on a represent that's not my hand right. that's a nice my hand right now. in my hand right now right here. that's my hand right there is that looking you think it cost me five thousand dollars to prove that that was not my damn hand. and judge ryan is simple would not allow this to be. our justice system sucks. it's just a corrupt company. terrible corrupt. mr alf was fined over two point nine million dollars for patent infringement in regards to saving seeds. the district judge mr else case was rodney simple a former attorney who worked at the law firm that represents monsanto and who is listed as one of month sandoz attorneys in one thousand nine hundred ninety seven

class action lawsuit. from two thousand two thousand and eight. it was the judge in eleven cases of which monsanto was the plaintiff or defendant the eleven cases were ruled in monsanto's favor. i found that the original research grants came from the new york foundation and that was the rockefeller foundation and that they had spent over one hundred million dollars of their foundation money to finance scientists around the world to do research to genetically modify some of the basic food seeds of the human food chain in the animal food chain and the more i researched into this the more i found that three maybe four companies if you include the swiss and cantor but the three main companies and one among them was dominant and that's monsanto that these what

i call in the book the four horsemen of the apocalypse these private seed companies they were originally chemical companies. stude poised within five or ten years at the rate they were going to dominate the basic seeds and patent those seeds that much power concentrated into four corporate entities three of whom have decades long track record of fraud deception lying to the public about the dangers of dioxin the dangers of agent orange and the vietnam war and after and so forth. that really set off the alarm bells for me. i got involved in the jail issue because it was a new technology bringing opportunities unless still see them as alternately.

i was the only the to civilians that she took part in four years of trawling. were the monsanto the great advice and gentlemen they were all in in this grouping and they agreed to the farm the trial which all told the two hundred sixty all different i mean not just cannot if we did spring and winter and i did both on the farm collector a gross spring right occasionally when i have to when i have a failure in the winter so i did both of those trials almost mom for three as did the first year as and when it's a protocol when they decided to exactly how they are with us at the. age they didn't take me long to realize at least walls a potentially simpler way to farm therefore it was cheaper therefore we could double benefits that could be seen to be bad to be pasta almost as if he was chasing me to grow and if the price of the end product came down i could still

produce it it's off to the end of the dow got to make a margin whatever i'm doing as it happens it's because of the technology we were also finding that the g.m. crops yielded a bit more than the conventional call in the same field under otherwise similar management because i was doing that. after what now thirteen years of crops in the field the theory is that. we will we have a herbicide tolerant trait that will reduce the demand for herbicides and we have to be cheery a tree that will protect farmers are pretty crap from some disease some pests that's the theory. even that can't be proven finally at this stage there's a still a constant battle being in yang going on between researchers and the companies as to show whether or not this really does work or not. we're not seeing increased food production we're not seeing increased benefits to farmers in terms of their

production costs we're not seeing improved neutral. qualities in our are and are on our table so there really isn't a clear benefit. everywhere

you go this is seems to be the wishes that you should just have to apply for grants . to come from the phone companies on on campuses the enlist students from beginning. can do a ph d. and what subject and whether they can publish those materials because they're now owned by the companies so it's wherever you go there is this kind of corruption going on this is not science. the people who want to administer. are not competent on even qualified or educated in science these are accountants these odd lawyers these are m.b.a.'s is that anything but scientists didn't listen to have become part of the.

what do you think about genetically modified foods and just in general yeah i think it's definitely safe but as long as there's regulation there's been research and everything there's. no research showing that it's not safe or that there's any difference between it and regular or not and modified food and scholarships they give us gosh oh yeah there's lots yeah lots from santo. better than yeah all the different chemical companies and everything like that for sure. so yeah they're getting involved in theirs they definitely have. a presence on campus for sure. it is the first time in the history of mankind that we have been able to engineer the genetic inheritance of living beings and it would be wise to ask if there are side effects and to check on them when you insert artificial genes

anywhere by bombarding an organism the plants general metabolism can be affected it could be terrible but if somebody could prove that is dangerous a really good good. horse. would be very positive because he would have arguments that nobody else has but as long. as nobody has the arguments expected to go home thinking to. do is no reason why dish should be doing this monsanto made p.c.p. is that they were a huge chemical company and they own ninety percent of the biotechnology patents so we took some of those g.m. corn i was part of the commission which was assessing this corn. and we said where the blood tests firstly the tests on rats didn't go beyond three months which was crazy they concealed the results not from the commission but from the public

there were affects many others on the commission said no it doesn't matter we said we must at least start over but we didn't so we asked it to be made public we had to go to a court of appeal monsanto went before the court to stop the world's scientists and the general public from seeing the blood tests on rats they're genetically modified corn for only three months. can you imagine that. the world's largest company which sells the most herbicide and which sells virtually the most g.m. seeds in the world goes to court to prevent disclosing blood test results of rats who ate their g.m.o. foods for only three months that's crazy. so we published the effects that we had observed there was a forty eight percent increase in fat a ten percent increase in sugar in the females an increase in liver which an increase in body weight. resembled

a pre-diabetic symptom the rats urine samples were abnormal particularly in the male rats the rats lost wit and their livers were affected. in the past thirty years there have been no government tests. all the world's drugs are only tested by pharmaceutical companies. the same goes for pesticides. in the late one nine hundred ninety s. patrick to see that his local organic supplier. turned out to be contaminated with g.m. oath so he filed a complaint to uncover where the contamination originated but in two thousand and one the case was dropped mr dick who was then contacted by a group of american farmers to join them in a class action lawsuit against monsanto dupont dow chemical astra zeneca and

novartis international accusing them of engaging in antitrust activities and failure to test for human health and environmental safety coincidentally the judge was rodney simple the same judge as in mr rolfs case the case was ruled in favor of the chemical companies. raising. the gene in my field was a patient and monsanto gene which was sold to me in seeds by as a girl which is a monsanto subsidiary i agreed to take part in a class action lawsuit in the united states so in two thousand i went to washington d.c. to testify to answer the questions asked by monsanto's lawyers all day they asked questions such as do you know your neighbors names i much tax do you pay and where nothing to do with g.m. seeds. i tended to meetings at the

ministry of agriculture recently during which they tried to impose on us a bill for a ministerial order for coexistence determining a twenty five yard distance between two fields of corn. that means that my neighbor g.m. crops twenty five yards away from my field and yes we officially proved in two thousand and six and two thousand and seven that plant three hundred yards away was contaminated. maybe there's not much organic corn today. maybe someone with five acres of organic corn surrounded by people with by five hundred acres of g.m. corn. so he's not important you can just die out that's the situation if you're small you don't matter make room for those who will feed the world. big farmers in my group managers will feed the world having poisoned it for years

it's unbelievable their objective is obvious they want to sell the seeds and the herbicide with the same company makes them both the objective is to liberate the farmer or to make them independent it isn't to make a better product for the consumer. pesticides and g.m. owes. g.m. food due to our d.n.a. to ourselves and to our children. we don't know. for the past twelve years genetically modified crops have been grown on a large scale around the world they feed both us and our animals we haven't observed any problems due to g.m. consumption or direct or indirect. this french farmer is completely self-sufficient along with four hundred fifty million other farmers worldwide he practices are again a public culture of farming compared to conventional chemical agriculture this type

of farming produces soil with three times more earthworms produces eighty percent more yields in developing nations and fruits and vegetables that are up to forty percent more nutritious studies even show that this type of organic farming could feed today's population in more so why do governments still give the majority of subsidies to conventional chemical farming companies claim we need g.m. crops to feed the world. if this is the case then why in america where g.m. crops have been commercialized the longest are thirty five million americans still food insecure see only experience and if you experiment with something without any follow up it's almost criminal pesca kill me now because what we're doing isn't very serious of your bills coffee yet that's what every government has done because biotechnology is their religion they think it will develop so that it

will be good to all but that's just a belief it would be you know it's just like when we were told the earth was flat or you get rather than the reality of e.g. . someone from the european union commission explained it to my wife at the time did there and it sure as my right she does that my name is she's a professor bought a. professor for study they explained it to had that. if if they repeated the study a this has civilizations that what we thought. would be able to hush it up again as once it was bad enough. twice is saw

most impossible what i had regarded also as the most important thing of studies is that that is an immediate response and in each case since then whatever the g.m. was they looked at the indian status of the animal was they always found that it was jeopardized when we looked at the rats who had been having the g.m. then the clip was illuminated and that we wouldn't have expected if the g.m. is substantially equivalent in other words the same then the length should be the identical but it wasn't so both the whole and the steinle tracked the lining was growing it was thickened so we thought this was evidence that there was a growth factor at work and if you apply that to transition lesion in the

human for example with the lower end of yourself because if you apply the growth factor of there then you might haste on the development of malignancy at the lower and of yourself with us and similarly in the stomach this once again transition lesions there which normally will take time to develop into cancer the gut and its immune system the guards this as a foreign material it's almost like i think it's not an infection but if the immune system just sees something coming in as strange foreign and it tested react to it i just think that. it was highly it is possible to foist on us something that was not properly examine

and we are all baited to be exposed to it is highly irresponsible or in fact i would say that it's probably craven the more but who the hell listens to me monsanto b.s.f. their dupont dow chemical syngenta and astra zeneca declined to be interviewed for this film. let me. keep a. good

. luck. and. it's. a.

good. place.

live. lists live. live live live live .

high profile discussion of the asia pacific nation. hoping to isolate themselves

from the eurozone crisis. post a. new austerity package intended as a. booming economy isn't always met with open arms but the united states sometimes. dangerous prospect. the world's political and economic heavyweights from the asia pacific nations descend upon a sunny this weekend storm clouds continue to.