what's needed national will discover you know when you've been imaging less that some may see it is possible to prevent you. from the regular morgue you know your car not going to move into iraq where you. wash your psyche or what else lucifer mistletoe is just that i'm like i don't i'm just going nobody it is not my achievement mr davies our 5 year plans were conceived baby needs and carried out by the people themselves if alan would produce or even florek it with the idea of making a film like this he probably be branded as crazy. now is the sentiment during the war the soviets were brave heroes resisting nazis that's going to change of course after the war once the cold war begins. people think that hollywood is

a free place but really what is strictly defined by. the business and the other side is ideal is. to find hollywood is a call to dream anything which is things true. i think equally it's a propaganda film. so if someone wants to authorize a broad market in europe let's say a plan protection product. because some of these companies the applicant has to provide to. the os as the risk is says those whether this product is safe one all 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 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 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 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 teach them the communication that john sees in the regular to reargue and sees how the same scientists. they were in order to promote the commercialisation 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 a magician you know because they were. on secret components we secretly effects

they say that you cannot. 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 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 it for a relative eyes all of because it's not actually

a lot of people but somehow 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 ever so if you're a scientist in your own. having any kind of dealing with a. and he closes

a number of avenues of work later so again we are really champions and creating difficulties for ourselves in europe but the rest of the world has to be. part of the problem and something else that needs to be changed is all the industry is fans 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 pick a fact between the universities needing the money and the companies being willing

to provide it but it's sunday collecting. joe it's worth 3 months santo and with me it's my partner eric lasker. who. is right here with. next to john is me why. the. thank you very much we move your college to the 2nd panel which look. at transparency and use of scientific studies and yes this month of life proceed in the united states and hopefully will provide insight into the so-called.

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 roughly 20 of those 30 years delving into the dealings of monsanto 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 months and who 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 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 and was very worried about you know toxicity questions arising from the say research when it engaged kirkland monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting belhaven wrote in 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 that's a gully 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 thank 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 sat 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 and based on that. regarding the independence from industry is clear in the legislation i would say these are the basic principles big kompany the ones.

markets in the you must be a war the assessment so the studies are conducted by industry though 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 release all of the 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 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 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 the monsanto is 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 could 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.

the world is driven by dreamers shaped by the interests of those with. no dares thinks. we dare to ask. the real shit like it's. this if. you give us the 1st one to open your mind we just

finished a little bit of urgency and. it's also useful to do all that except. if it was national guard can you pull off. a thought and upload it to the public a little. it's a local shelter from the films. will support scoop what are these products going up to the scheme was a good beginning of a leash because between. the shingle wife of use me a. little bit in. the polls someone to be naming it because it does a lot of style if you really need to. 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 the regulation which is scientific which is the other bays in which as much as possible. decides results 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 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 comes with an opinion let's say and they only continue it's. politicians love if so. wonderful to have so you're protecting the beast you're doing the right thing really good work than i 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 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 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 seeing corporate capture not only in the sciences in 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 you for such as they try to. and you say it's the motion for calls to the streets. very few for such reporting that president obama. mocks from product or from our very stiff reduced or your extreme interest for this to get into for science for both good and. 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 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 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 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 have the impulse to cut off the gun there then and that's fine last 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 let that i live in nothingness when enough mcentee that i pass on after going to hump a comparable to say less but if we like a machine up in it but i'm into opium in a country. like anti gun oppression the kind of a hunt in the home here is that i list but if we. do

not come to that gun that of the mother. so yes because of the 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 the a 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 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 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 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 plants we have to cumber resistant plants and to for day 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 akron food 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 marvelously shoes social issues they are 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 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 college breezy affair so i'm just a little bird in the system doing my job as much as i turn. 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.

it's a leg . or an ale. the end. of the air .

has a on a i. changed. instantly. does the biden foreign policy differ from that of trump's at this point not really however there is one difference trumpet challenge the bipartisan consensus in

failed biden on the other hand appears happy to oblige the interagency consensus is we need to get. out. of. this 1st. and go raise us for a 3rd night in minnesota or offer a black man fleeing a traffic stop place shot dead by police crowds across the country or again according to a fool seems to be defunded while some of going on the rampage leaving local businesses here in the worst. president.