so if someone wants to authorize a product in europe let's say a plan protection product dispersant be called this person or this company the applicant has to provide data that allows us as the risk assess us to judge whether this product is safe or not and this information comes from the applicant and the studies that are commissioned by the applicant to allow us to assess the safety are paid by the applicant obviously so it's the intellectual property of the applicant and we can publish parts of these studies in the current legal framework but we also have to respect their business confidentiality claims of the applicants so there's a balance to be found between transparency as much as possible but also to protect

the investment of companies into their product innovations. that is that companies have to submit studies to the european commission they do the studies themselves. they have to submit it to the european commission and to f. so so the european food safety authority and they have the tenor of experts that looks at the studies and then they say ok it's safe or not. so what we have found is that within these expert panel so you have a lot of people with ties with the food industry so that means a conflict of interest. so the home feast and the communication and since he's in the regular to reargue

and sees how the same scientists. they were in order to promote the commercialization of their products. this is why if you ask them something you have the same answer and they say it's a consensus. exactly like in the middle ages you were asking to the priest what is the truth you know you are asked to these scientists regular to religion sees what is the truth and they act in the same manner as magician you know because they work in secret compounds we secretly effects they say that you cannot publish that however they say they have the truth.

if you spend a huge amount of money doing a study a study of something when there's a lot of confidential information in there that you don't want. another company to copy paste of course not i mean you might have spent here is all over sources so people time a lot of time a lot of money on doing this research. what i've said does it analyzes all of that or publish the results so it will publish it will come out with a statement at the end. and it will publish the results but it won't publish all the details of what a lot of people want to see because there are a lot of people for a 4 hour relativize all of it because it's not actually a lot of people but some people. want to see everything that's fine i think now it's actually open published but you're talking about several thousands of pages i don't know who in his right mind would sit down and we through all of those pages i think is some parts can be blacked out but i would insist that that's to do with

privacy so the relationship between our company. and research institutes and universities is quite strong as i mentioned before in many parts of the world it tends to be the public sector developing the products thanks to a relationship with a company maybe the company donated the technology the problem in europe for example is that in f. so that you mentioned before they have scientists assessing the products and the scientists have a obligation to have no conflict of interest that means they have to have had no relationship whatsoever with industry ever so if you're a scientist in europe. having any kind of dealing with a company closes a number of avenues of work later so again we are really champions in creating difficulties for ourselves in europe but the rest of the world is.

part of the problem and something else that needs to be changed is all the industry is funds many laboratories and funds studies through the universities which to a certain extent has to be done because the universities don't have enough money but the problem then becomes that when the universe when the monsanto for example draw a paper and they ghostwrite it and they need to slap a name onto it they'll go to the university and say you know remember that lab we bought for you or remember that study we funded through university now we need your help and that's the problem there's this circular synergistic effect between the universities needing the money and the companies being willing to provide it but it's sunday collecting. hollingsworth for monsanto and with me it's my partner.

who's right here with. me right. the. thank you very much for your courage to this 2nd panel which look. at the transparency and use of scientific studies and yes this month of life proceed in the united states and the hopefully will provide insight into the so-called papers thank you very much for inviting me to be here today as a journalist for some 30 years now i'm someone who has spent most of my life focusing on facts pursuing the truth i spent roughly 20 of those 30 years delving

into the dealings of monsanto and i can confidently tell you that the story of the company's top selling chemical to say is not one of truth but one of deceit it's sort of a treasure trove a look inside a very big and powerful company that has been very secretive you know for decades and a lot of the information is quite alarming when it comes to public health and safety associated with the use of their popular product like the same around it another way in which months and who has manipulated regulators in the public by establishing networks of scientists around the world to support its agenda and its message about the safety of this chemical months and no end or the months in a back like this that taskforce pays them they lobby regulators they are their papers sensually to push this message that the chemical is safe there are many individuals and there are many types of different relationships that we've seen in these documents you can see here that professor david kirkland is one such paid

expert monsanto has relied on. in 2012 months it was very worried about toxicity questions arising from a research gauge needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting with bill hayden's wrote in that email i think i was just naive and it clearly did not lead to any policy decision we all have decades of experience in the industry and therefore we have reputations to maintain and that means that there is no point in being responding to the influence of one stakeholder over another because those reputations would be

destroyed i can say absolutely. categorically this paper was not written we all imports our own sections to the paper there was no input involvement or influence of the review. thinking. well it seems apparent that monsanto actually fears real independent authentic science said itself it feared the i.r. preview when it found on a 2014 this is before down before the classification monsanto says it fears this it says internally that it knew it had vulnerability in epidemiology toxicology geno talks. officials even predicted the glyphosate would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to. process is defined as a peer review and i understand that i don't have a problem with that peer review problem in this case is that. no. nobody went

back and verified the findings on the original studies and by failing to verify those findings it cascaded through the entire review process such that you don't have the answer which is based on the best science i think that these important to mention that we have doing in the proper independent the sussman. accordingly we did so so that we have enough so according to the regulation that focus on the use of the active and based on. we got to be in the independence from industry is clear in the legislation i would say these are the basic principles big company the ones to market something the e.u. must pay for the assessment so this by the 2nd doubt that the industry will go the current process is scientifically flawed it is time to have an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the way in which the science is reviewed there is

a need for the regulatory agencies to really analyze the data and there is a need to publicly publicly release all of the analyses and data to improve the transparency of this process these are not the actions of a company that has nothing to hide this is not how you promote a product this is that's actually proven safe this is how you whitewash unfortunate and unprofitable facts. this is not by accident but by design and it serves months into very well but it does not seem that it serves the public interest thank you. monsanto prepared certain documents for the registration and the report if you look at it has taken directly certain language from the monsanto documents and just placed it in the report so there's a lot of concern about whether i really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against. monsanto's request so that is not an

independent assessment how can we therefore expect that on the basis of such robust science and i'm quoting industry we can make a decision politicians in the e.u. can make a decision to protect their people that if somebody. you know i said hello to the industry at some stage in his life that should not mean that that particular scientists should be banned from a panel or. research has been funded somewhere by someone and many of the scientists that have a lot of them have now left the f c organization and their science panels because they have been accused of having worked with the industry but since when does that make a scientist dishonest why should having worked with the industry some years ago on a small project at some stage i did i'm a scientist by training and when i was in university of course i was looking for

a grant to do my research because some research can cost a lot of money i was helped by industry i haven't spoken to that particular industry now for many many yes it's been a long time since i was in college. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as a scientist. join me every thursday on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to us of the world of politics or business i'm show business i'll see you there. a lot of questions what does it mean to be a conservative today is coming from

a conservative and if you change with means to be conservative what about the issue you can find to see for conservatives to which. she should move the names of those who are doing just that in japanese and often you don't mind that just by commision on that was the goal post the shining most all. the time you can look at the my face you know for a long today my company noticed they were established at the map. and johanan least when they had mine in the whole bunch of us the economy told everyone that if bush at last sept is that. moment you will see only. the muslims who get to know all those who not only remember as though a grander goal of america. almost around to. use the term obama momentum but. look at what is called the minimal point out of which the mom

i am going to come up thinking i come up each time she comes home to go to the missing office going to go beyond we have to get out what am i doing going to know about me. know europe to instill fear in the region where influence is very high and those are regions who go to europe for for regulation. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps the regulation which is scientific which is the other big news in which as much as possible besides. being influenced by. i would say by noise or by

just emotions and fear. when science meets values and it's becoming complicated we come with science with evidence we do scientific process of risk assessment but then this evidence is given on another stage on the policy level where our beliefs emotions values come in and what we see is if politicians don't like the outcome of our risk assessment they don't question their belief they question the validity of the process so basically if succumbs with an opinion let's say only on the couldn't know it's insecticides. politicians love if so they wonder food if so you are protecting the

bees you're doing the right thing really good work down there so we all applaud to you and if the same process with the same people with the same scrutiny comes with a conclusion let's say you. people say i'm sorry i don't like this if so should not say that it is relatively safe so if so must be corrupt i find this very bizarre you know regulations is independent of corporate influence and. everything is tests to. actually test it. with a lot of money and authorities are looking at it independently. i don't know where these people have been living. even in some of the mainstream if you do find reports that clearly explain that this is not happening we are seen

corporate kept not only in the sciences sciences this is one of the fields we see corporate capture in every walk of life. i'd like to say it seems to be very highly charged not because of the safety of classes but because of g.m. because of monsanto because of international trade maybe even because of inequality with global trade you for such a. system must be some of the seats very few for such a book about it in the world for. be obnoxious from there from our. studios to each other extreme. searching for those tibetan people so much for both

good and. for love. but of course if the scientist works for the company that's a different story but i think we need to be a little bit more. realistic about what it is we want do we want the best scientists to assess the products to make sure they're safe all do we want to make sure there is no conflict of interest what is the objective is that the safety of the product because of the conflict of interests of the of the scientists i think we need to be a bit more. honest and trustworthy without falling into the mistakes and so that's not something that we're looking for either. the experts we use are as independent as possible but i think also here it's not black or white it's not c. or one that's not the binary approach we have to find the right balance between the

best expertise which means people that have done research that people that are with both their feet in the scientific endeavor and on the other hand to make sure that no conflict of interest and if i may say also but i think europe needs to make a decision whether we know i think or stop you. yes i thought leads to far. enough in this to nothing on this from which the mice when they don't suffer the impulse to get off the gun there then that's one last 101 telephone anything honest i don't want in the bill is left of my shyness but i am plump and thinks that i'll hunt up a name for it in the last are going to be like that i live in nothingness when

enough and the other bashfulness can often put a compliment to sell us but if we like a machine open it but i mean to go beyond. that and he got the best from the content of a hunt in the home he had to know is that the list but if we. do know that that of the mother. so it's precautionary principle is and by scientific n.e.t.'s i think. a big issue for european economy in general because it reduces. the willingness. there is a risk in the. new presses and. this is a risk. benefit i'm i willing to take this risk yes or no and the regulation today

. gives us an answer. if you look at the core of today it is much safer than the car yesterday you know the 1st car that i drove in when i was a boy and my father was riding no safety belt and i was no i had no air by i did not know a.b.s. and and yet 0 car maker was not a murderer. the car was like this. it was a very safe car for the time and i'm not saying that he says of 950. you know where fantasy but buys in there were very good night and then we discover that there are some side effects and then the regulation evolves in regulation becomes more demanding and especially sides and or always drawn from the company and that's normal that's normal. of any industry the power of innovation doesn't come from the big companies the big companies are too big to be innovative anymore they just want

to preserve their privileges but they're not innovating anymore look at look at the g.m. and the pesticides we're dealing with g.m. plants that were developed 30 years ago nothing has changed it's another side resistance since the beginning it's all chemical testing of asian. innovation is that we now have in addition to roundup ready and run a business to plant we have become resistant plants and to for the resistant plants so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that's innovation. it has to get it's just has to get. benefits versus risk right what is a risk you're willing to accept on the environment even if it's very small in order to have a safe and affordable food supply. to

me the defining battle in the future will also be around our preferred system if we manage to get our in my view dysfunctional agra food system. on a sound environmental economic social and economic basis. then we solve everything else will come from. even climate change and these things health issues and marginally shews social issues they are collateral they're all part of the of this whole thing that is connected and the connect the connecting the centerpiece is this food. and how you produce it. because we see. the world as it is.

we are in fact and the border edge of the river lucian. because humankind is able to do it but much time that will take how much. misery. that will create i don't know but that's i'm only you know there is a french writer called peer hobby he said this is a colibri affair so i'm just a little bird in the system doing my job as much as i can. for the yeah you want to our own thing we need to as. she goes well i can certainly add that we're hopeful i mean i'm happy to say you know in europe we're not going to give up when are going to there are lots of other technologies

it's not just about g.m.o. there are lots of other technologies coming out and the companies are committed to invest in europe as well despite it being so. uncomfortable is a euphemism to work here. this is a. lead .

to the end. of the end . the group. marriage was a different bed better they've got married another researcher to be reunited with

their barry. betters weapon of mass communication is spreading in developing n.f.l. endings that way to marinate the danger family and of m.t.v.'s affairs and admit well devices more than $12000000000.00 contaminated countries if you lose money which is about taking your money and metal greg against alternative vision sacrificed if you start to question all of america your way excelled in n.y.c. you're mistaken lemonade is everywhere after it in a period of media narrative a undercover integrated estate outside marriage if you will get exposed to

a particular conflates decontaminate will i love to help you i'll use it as break everything to. track down where narrow you can defend yourself i enjoyed every one from the weapons of mass communication. that said for the teeth early earth to the enemy of things or do you fear air. for all the driven by drew asking for further. no jerry thinks. we dare to ask.

congress to amend the relief package bill negotiated for months followed by christmas is the amount of cash expected to be handed to americans in the next 2 small. congress found plenty of money from foreign countries lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the american people. french government backs a bill to introduce so-called green passports under which movement restrictions will be placed on people not vaccinated against coronavirus. this rose.