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 the 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 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 whole system the communication engine sees in the regular to reargue and sees how 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 ask to these scientists in regular to religion sees what is the truth and they act in the same. as much as you should know because they work

in secret compounds secretly effects they say that you cannot publish them 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 years 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 of 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. 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 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. 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 center just stick a fact between the universities need the money and the companies being willing to provide it but it's sunday collecting. rather joins work from and santo and with me is my partner eric lasker. who. is right here with. next to john is me why why not. be. thank you very much we move your college to the 2nd panel we look. at transparency and use of scientific start. in the united

states and then hopefully will provide. us 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 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 is a round up 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 author 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 is relied on. in 2012 months and was very worried about you know toxicity questions arising from the same research when it engaged kirkland monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that we're persisting with bill how you can be my own 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 us being or responding to the influence of one stakeholder over another because those reputations would be destroyed i can say absolutely and if the goalie 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 monsanto thanking you 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 set down before the classification monsanto says it fears this it says internally that it knew it had vulnerability in epidemiology

toxicology geno talks monsanto 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 i don't have a problem with that peer review problem in this case is that's not was 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 these important. we have doing in the proper independent assessment. according to sources that we have enough so according to the regulation that focus on the use of the active sessions and based on that. regard in the. independence from industry is

clear in the legislation. the basic principle big comp on the market something the you must pay for the assessment so the studies are conducted by industry though the current process is scientifically floored 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 you know alice these 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 etc 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 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 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 years it's been a long time since i was in college. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as a scientist.

americans love. this was a fundamental part of how our political leadership and our country at large understood the bargain you get a hope and then you know rebel right that's the things you don't revolt if you have a stake in the system. and think about the longer deeper history housings men in the united states not just that question of the american dream but the bigger question of who the dream is for. an entire village in alaska has had to move if another country trying to wipe out

an american town. we do everything in our power to protect. water they escaping climate change is the same threat right now alaska does seem some of the fuss just coastal erosion in the world lost about 35 feet. 35 feet of ground in just about 3 months while we were measuring. is fast paced the river is 35 closer than how many was here before i think we're a part of america 1st from or. worse. now

europe tends to be in the region where influence is very high and those are regions look at europe for for regulation. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps a regulation which is scientific which is that obeys and which as much as possible . decides results being influenced by. by i would say by noise or by just emotions and fear. when science mean. values and it's becoming complicated. we come with science

with evidence we do scientific process of risk assessment but then decide 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 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 if 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 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. they try to. and you say it's the most difficult to the states it's very true for such reporting about and put in at all for. the other marks from parts or from our very stiff reduced or rejects the interaction from which to get into for science for both good and. 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 the guest 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. 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. out of what i've seen this time nothing on this from which the mice when they don't suffer the impulse to cut off the other there then that's fun last time a 101 telephone anything honest i totaled in the billions left on my mission is what i am plump and think is that i 100 buying freely in the last are going to be like that i live in nothingness when enough luck and the other bashfulness going to hump a comparable to sell us but if we like a machine up in it but i'm into opium in a country. like and think that the best from the can of a hunk in the. is that i list but if we. do know that that of the mother.

so it's 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 precious 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 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 she 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 is changed it's another side resistance since the beginning it's all chemicals or something of a sudden. the innovation is that we now have in addition to roundup 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. 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 aircraft systems 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 center piece is 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 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 college breezy 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 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.

i am . so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy confrontation let it be an arms race is often very dramatic development only personally i'm going to resist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very clear to kill or die time to sit down and talk.

no one nuff said no not. ugly little political new no. would be sure no per. 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 said israel should go up. there no. trouble no new sun new look at the russia and. the. modern. general martha. knew them all more not up on their own i

got almost 0. i'm going to no no i've got a whole nother full kind of wish to know about the one you i know you did room. for more or less there no. body bill can you. point us to go out i just want the. smile in you on an album. i think it must have been a. the world is driven by a dream shaped by one person with those great.

military thinks. we dare to ask. the biggest stories of the week from mounting international developers of russia sputnik the vaccine son an official memorandum of cooperation with astra zeneca they hope by combining the 2 vaccines it will improve advocacy. and you will contagious strain of covert has been detected in england causing panic worldwide with more than 40 countries banning arrivals from the u.k. . this clemency for killers but known for whistleblowers dozens of pardons from donald trump exclude those who spilled the beans on u.s. war crimes but include mercenaries found guilty of the mass murder of civilians in iraq. so that there is no justification iraqi blood has recalled per miscible.