finally wrap of some global news for you thousands of drivers remain stuck on motorways and lorry parks in kent in the u.k. are they france has reopened its border there they need to test negative for corona virus in order to leave the country borders closed for 48 hours over a new strain of covert found in britain. as well at least 21 people have been injured one critically so after an explosion in central baltimore yesterday incident occurred on the 16th floor of the baltimore gas and electric building official calls remains. elephants brought face masks to type children on wednesday as part of a covert $900.00 safety initiative to encourage mask usage comes as a large coronavirus outbreak occurs at one of the country's biggest seafood markets thailand currently has almost 6000 cases of the virus. and i wraps it up for this news hour thanks for joining us here on r.t. objects enough now.

christmas eve special well we await santa nothing away for because the future is here now and it's clear yes. so if someone wants to authorize a broad market in europe let's say your plan protection product dispersant we call this person or this company the applicant has to provide data that allows us as the risk a says 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 properly parts of the studies in the current legal framework but we also have to respect the business confidentiality claims of the applicants so there's a balance to be found between transparency as much as possible but also to predict 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. deficit made it to the european commission and to so the european food safety authority and they have the tenor of experts that looks at the studies and then they say ok and safe or not. so what we have found is that within these expert panels you have a lot of people with ties with. the food industry so that means

a conflict of interest. so their home system the communication engine sees in the regular to reaction sees have the same scientists and they work 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 in the whole you are asked to these scientists in 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 where there's a lot of confidential information 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 a 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 it for out relativize all of it because. well actually

a lot of people but some people. want to see everything that's fine i think now it's actually all been published but you're talking about several thousands of pages i don't know who in his right mind would sit down and read 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 companies 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 the 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 drafts 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 which. when

the universities need the money and the company's been willing to provide it but it's sunday collecting. your honor joe in 2 or 3 months santo and with me is my partner eric lasker. who's right who's here with. next to me why i know. the. thank you very much for your courage to this 2nd panel which look. at 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 life 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. the regulators they author papers

essentially 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 and was very worried about you know toxicity questions arising from the same research gauge heard when monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting what bill haden's wrote in that email i think i was just naive and it clearly did not leave any policy

decision we all have decades of experience in the industry and then a full week of reputations to maintain and that means that there is no point in those 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 ghost written we all imports our own sections to the paper there was no import involvement or influence of the review on months and thinking. well it seems apparent that monsanto actually fears real independent authentic science said itself it feared the i.r. preview when it found an n 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 tux. munson officials even predicted that glyphosate would warrant

a possible or probable rating with respect to f.'s in echo. you know absence of process is defined as a peer review and i understand that and that's why i don't have a problem with that peer review problem in this case is that's not was done 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 the important . we have doing a proper independent assessment. according to sources that we have enough so according to the regulations that focus on the use of the active and based on. who's got to be in the independence from industry is getting the legislation i would say the. basic principle big company the ones to market something the you

must pay for the assessment so this studies have conducted by industry there is no doubt the current process is scientifically flawed it is starting 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 monsanto very well but it does not seem that it serves the public interest thank you. monsanto prepared certain documents for the registration and the at 70 point if you

lie. that it has taken directly certain language from the monsanto documents and just placed it in the the report so there's a lot of concern about whether f. they 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 all excitement show and i'll be speaking to you after the world of politics or business i'm show business i'll see you there. now you are of dense to be a region where influence is very high and as a region she looked at europe for for regulation. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps regulation which is scientific which is database in which as much as possible. decides.

being influenced by. 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 talk and scientific process of risk assessment but then this evidence is given on another stage on the policy level there are beliefs emotions values coming 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 comes with an opinion let's say on the only continue it's.

politicians love if so. wonderful to have so you're protecting the peace you're doing the right thing really good work than they have so we all applaud to you and if the same process with the same people with the same scrutiny comes with the conclusion that. people say i'm sorry i don't like this outcome should not say that it is relatively safe so and so must be corrupt i find this very bizarre you know regulations is independent of corporate influence and. everything is a test it actually test it. with a lot of money and origins 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 is this one of the fields we see corporate capture in every walk of life. i'd like to see 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. they try to. the new system must be for close to the streets. very few for such reporting about and put in at all for. marks from parker from our

very stiff and teacher extreme interaction for mr van impe you for science for both good and. beloved. but of course if the science has 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's no conflict of interest what is the objective is that the safety of the product is that the conflict of interests of the of the scientist 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. 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 that i think europe needs to make a decision whether we know i think or stop you. yes i thought leads to far. out of what i've seen this done nothing on this from which the mice when they don't suffer the impulse to cut off the gun there then in one last time 101 telephone anything honest i totaled in the bill is left on my mission is what i have long and

that is that i 100 buy in from here in the last are going to let that i live in nothingness when enough luck and the other bashfulness going to hop over from plymouth to sell us but if we like a machine open it but i mean to go be in a country. like auntie got the best from the kind of a hunk in the home here is that i list but if we. do now that you've gotten that of the mother. so yes precautionary principle is and by scientific n.e.t.'s i think. the 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. this is

a benefit i'm i willing to take this risk yes or no and the regulation today. gives as an answer. if you look at the corner 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 z. a 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 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 to become that these 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 chemicals are something of a shift in. the innovation is that we now have in addition to round up ready and around resistant plants we have become resistant plants and tool for deer resistant plants so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that's innovation. it has to get out it 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 acro food system if we manage to get our in my view dysfunctional agra food system. on a sound and vironment economic social and economic basis. then we solve everything else will come from. even climate change and these things health issues and marketplace use social issues they're 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 or evolution. because the human kind is able to do it but home 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 watch on thing going into ads and. 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 open 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. leg

. or and the end .

russian state television listen to demonstrators right now playing propaganda machine. it's always russia must play to. play. the. miracle upline koku. i'm truly innocent. look. live. they still love. lives of the way.

place to good. is you'll be via reflection of reality. in a world transformed. what will make you feel safe. isolation whole community. are you going the right way or are you being led. directly to what is true watch this space. in the world corrupted you need to descend. to join us in the

depths. orem even the shallows. clemency for killers. pardon list includes mercenaries guilty of the mass murder of civilians in iraq. those who spilled the beans on us war crimes. argentina officially registered. with the plane carrying supplies ready to depart from moscow. and then also merry christmas with pandemic restrictions in place around the world 'd people are finding it difficult to get into the 1st of spirit. as frontline health care workers in the u.k. express their frustration around the n.h.s. admin staff appear to be given priority for.