product in europe let's say a plan protection product dispersant because this person or this company the applicant has to provide data that allows us as the risk assessors 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 pieces 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.c. so the european food safety authority and they have a penalty 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 panels you have a lot of people with ties with the food industry so that means a conflict of interest. so the whole system the communication engine sees in the regular to reargue and sees have the same scientists and they were in order to promote the commercialization of their product.

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 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 on something 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 if that doesn't have allies 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 out 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 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. 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 between the universities needing the money and the companies being willing to provide it but it's sunday collecting. joins work for monsanto and with me it's my partner eric lasker. who's right here with. next to me right.

the. thank you very much for your courage to this 2nd panel with. transparency and use of scientific. in the united states and then 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 month center 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 the chemical months and no end or the months and back life is a task force 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 gino toxicity questions arising from say research but it engaged her when monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting with bill haden'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 then a full week of 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 ghost written we all imports our own sections to the paper there was no import involvement or influence of the review. thinking. well it

seems apparent that monsanto actually fears real independent authentic science monsanto said itself it feared the i.r. preview when it found n 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 talks and officials even predicted that glyphosate would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to. the absence of process is defined as a peer review and i understand that and that's 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 of 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 in the proper independent assessment. according to sources that we have enough so according to the regulations that focus on the use of the active sanctions and based on that. regarding the independence from industry is clear in the legislation i would say these are the basic principles big comp on the market something the you must pay for the assessment so the studies are 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 analysis 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 etc port 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 f.'s i really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against iraq at 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 scientist should be banned from a panel or. research has been funded by someone and many of the scientists that have a lot of them have now left the. 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 could cost a lot of money i was helped by industry i haven't spoken to that particular industry now for many many years it's been a long time since i was in college. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as

a scientist. to do in just that interim reason i. don't mind it just by committees and on the. slab because of the motivation to launch today might have been out of. the map a lot got paid off and. on only to have more that last sept is that. going to be. around to.

look at what's called the minimal point out of which tomato plant going to come up thinking i'm obviously i'm sick of the optimistic office going to be really happy that i'm just going to open up and let me. know you're of tends to be a region where influence is very high and all the regions look at europe for for regulation. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps regulation which is scientific

which is that they're based 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 do and it's scientific process of risk assessment but then d.c. evidence is given on another stage on the policy level there are we need emotions values coming and what we see is if put a dish and don't like the outcome of our risk assessment. they don't question their believe they question the validity of the process so basically it comes

with an opinion let's say and they only continue its insecticides. politicians love if so. wonderful 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 a conclusion let's say and. 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 test it actually test it. with a lot of money and. 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 capture 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 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. tries. and you say it's the most difficult to the states it's

very true for starts with both iraq and president obama. from the part you're from are very stiff with your extreme interest for this to get into for science for both good and sr to 7000000. but of course if the scientists 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 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 i think europe needs to make a decision whether we know i think i'll stop you. yes i thought leads to fog. but i think this time nothing on this from which the mice when they don't suffer the impulse to cut off he got there then that's fine thus the 101 telephone

anything honest i totaled in the billions left on my mission is what i am plump and think is that i 100 buy in from here in the last are going to be like that i live in nothingness when enough like on t.v. i better not going to hump or to implement to sell us but if we like a machine open it but i'm into the. country. and he got the best from the kind of a hunk in the north is that i list but if we. do not come to that depth of the mother. so yes precautionary principle is anti-scientific any t's i think. a big issue for european economy in general because it reduces the income is a 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 in the house no one had no air by going on to a.b.s. and and yet 0 car maker was not murder. the car was like this. it was a very safe car for the time and i'm not saying that betty 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 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 bt and the other side resistance since the beginning it's all chemicals or something of a sudden. the innovation is that we now have in addition to round up ready and round resistant plans we have to come by resistant plants and to for the resistant plants so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that's innovation. has to get it's just has to get the. 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 aquifer 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 arbitrary shoes social issues they're collateral they're all part of the of this whole thing that is connected and the connect the connecting the center piece is its 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 human kind is able to do it but how 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 from isn't that. great though 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 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. a. yeah every

. lead. to chaos.

lead. he leads. christmas special while we away santa left it away for because the future is here now and it's glorious. you know one nuff said no no. no. the real deal with the issue in the. unit 731 was a unique organization in the history of the world what they were trying to do was to simply do nothing short and build the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program that the world had ever known.

the real own you know. where the sage is your worship god. lived under no. sun you look at the rush of. him on the modern. you know modern fathers and now you know them all more now upon their i've got almost you know. i'm going to no no i've got the number 4 kind of wish to know about the one you don't know who did him. no more or less than one. of them and all buddy bill can you. point us both to go out. on what the. see my and you are now. in some more. gates in and out of the year you will not

a more than think of us. player .

plays. the headlines of clemency for killers known for whistle blowers donald trump's pardon list includes mr aris guilty of the mass murder of civilians in iraq but leaves off those who spilled the beans on american war crimes today we hear they've been released and the personal orders of president trump it's like the u.s. doesn't care if the spilled a rocky blood it seems political considerations prevailed over a legal and judicial watch and this decision also this hour a plane carrying sputnik a supply of small sky was on its way to argentina after the country's regulator officially registers the russian jab not so merry christmas.