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. stop so the european food safety authority and they have a panel 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 overt own 3 stem the communication agence he's in the regular to reaction sees have the same scientists and they work 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 you know you ask 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 on 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 years all over sources so people time a lot of time and 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. relative eyes all of 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 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 doing fine. part of the problem and something else that needs to be changed is all the industry is funds many laboratories and fund. 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 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 take a fact between the universities need 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. who. is right. next to me right.

thank you very much we move your courage to the 2nd panel which look. at transparency and use of scientific studies and yes this month of july for seed in the united states and the hopefully we'll provide insight into the so-called monsanto 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 sate is not one of truth but one of deceit it's sort of a treasure trove a look inside. 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 monsanto has manipulated regulators and the public by establishing networks of scientists around the world to support its agenda and its message about the safety of this chemical months on end or the months in a 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 life is a research gauge kirkland monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting was that 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 then a full week 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 and if the goalie categorically this paper was not ghost written we all imports our own sections to the. by put there was no input 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 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 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 that we have doing in the proper independent the sussman. accordingly we did so so that we have enough so according to the focus on the use of the active sessions and based on the. news 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 you 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 scientist 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. 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 call it. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as

a scientist. when i almost sure seem wrong. why don't we all just don't call. me old yet to shape out these days because educated and engaged with equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground.

max kaiser this is the kaiser report with stacy herbert an special year end guest misfires die the men who i must say how the kind of sensitivity to world events and markets we're really seeing anywhere except here on kaiser for mit welcome back. this is nothing like football. it's not a money spinner but it is expensive. and it's dangerous. and this is on the speedway. and they have no brakes to. stop the coach some

people. know you're of tends to be a region where influence is very high and those are regions group of europe for for regulation. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps the regulation which is scientific which is the other bays in which as much as possible. decides results 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 and they only continue it's insecticides. politicians love if so. wonderful to have so you are protecting the

beast you are 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 the conclusion that. people say i'm sorry i don't like this all come 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 test. 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 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 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 you for. your system must from all 50 states each very few for such a book about it in that oprah. be obnoxious. pick. each extreme. for this to get into for science for both good and.

beloved. 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 the gas 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 on. 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 or stop you. yes i thought leads to far. out of what i've seen this done nothing only from which from us but they don't suffer the impulse to cut off each other there than in one last time 101 telephone anything honest i thought of the billions left on my mission is what i am plump and think is that i 100 buying from here in the last are going to you know one thing like that i live in nothingness when enough like on t.v.

i bashfulness going to hump or to implement to sell us but if we like a machine up in it but i'm into opium in a country. like auntie that the passion of kind of a hunk in the home here is that balance but if we. do know that that of the mother. so it's precautionary principle 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. this is a 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 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 0 car maker was not a murderer. the car was a good. it was a very safe car for the time and i'm not saying that because 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 bond 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 chemicals or something of a shift in. the innovation is that we now have in addition to round up ready and round resistant plants we have to cumber resistant plants and 2 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. them if we manage to get our in my view dysfunctional our grow 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 marvelously shoes social issues they're collateral they're all part of the of this whole thing that it's 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 human kind is able to do that 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. know 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. leg .

to. leg .

she's from the movie lincoln was it did just that it just means that. you don't mind it just became a zone on that was. the shining most of. the time you could look at the my face you know i don't see they might come to be not in the established at the map. about the economy to have more than a from bush at last sept is that. you

will see only. a month to get to know i mean that i'm so. proud of that i would use the term obama didn't know i'm going to. look at what's called the minimum 0.05 which to my homeland going to come up they can come up each time she comes home to go to go to school nothing i mean people are really happy that what i'm doing going to look at them in. the world is driven by shaped by one person.

who dares thinks. we dare to ask. americans love buying homes. this was a fundamental part of how our political leadership and our country a large understood the bargain you get a hope and then you know. well right as the things you don't revolt if you have a stake in the system. be really interesting to dial it back and think about the longer deeper history housings man in the united states not just at all the question of the american dream but the bigger question of who the dream is and for .

as long as monday morning is full intensive care units force california clinics to set up makeshift wards and beds outdoors while nurse tells us just how bad the situation is getting. worse stuck now we were running low on oxygen on supplies beehive patients in overflow overflow overflow areas in russia some better news to tell you. with the covert job starts for people over 60 the group most affected by the virus of the health ministry approved the jobs safety and efficacy. coronavirus vaccination rolls out across to europe too but says.