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 publish 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 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 a 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 home to stem the communication agence he's in the regular to reargue and sees how the same scientists and 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 says what is the true. they are in the same manner as magician no because they work on 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 i've said does it allies as all of that are published 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 publish 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 watson. 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. rather joins work from monsanto and with me it's my partner eric lasker. who. is right here with. the. 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 life proceed in the united states. and that 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 to say the 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 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 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 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 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 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 . we have doing in a 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. we got to be 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 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's a need to 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 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 as 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.

the world is driven by dreamers shaped by the one percent of those with. no dares thinks. we dare to ask. you this but i get a malt to see. you give us the 1st one to open your mind we just finished a little bit of urgency. that's also useful to do and to accept. if it was national guard coming off.

the plane. talk a little. it's a local shelter from the difficulties. will support school board if these critics one of the least most of whom you didn't need to lose because between. the shingle life of your smear. job the city and you those who. oppose someone into believing it because of the old style if you believe it you. know you're of tends to be in a region where influence is very high and all the regions look at your form for

regular. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps regulation which is scientific which is databases 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 scientific process of risk assessment but then decent 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 believe 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 if so you are protecting the b.s. 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 a conclusion let's say and. people say i'm sorry i don't like this if so should not say that i have to say 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. actually test it. with a lot of money and authorities 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 in 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 be some of statistics each very few for such a bit in the world for. be obnoxious from there from our. studios to teach extreme. for mr van impe you 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 because of 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 the 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 follow.

but i've seen this done nothing on this from which the mice when they don't have the impulse to cut off each other there then in one last 101 telephone anything honest i totaled in the billions and they 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 you know one thing like that i live in nothingness when enough luck and the other 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 best from the kind of a hunk in the home here is that i list but if we. get out of the. country that 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 pressures 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 core 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 the a car maker was not murder. the car was made. 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

a 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 another side resistance since the beginning it's all the 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 to for dear is this the 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. them 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 marital issues 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 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 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. leg

. to. leg

. like freeze dried water just add water. and then. it's art just art here's $100000.00 all you need is the ark to go with it but you got the. artist at heart it's freeze dried are. bought it's freeze dried. money it's as if it's something and. what it is of the says if it.

was need to. know when you've been eating less. you're more your car. wash ashore strike you all but those lucifer this. is not my achievement mr davies out of 5 beautiful lands were conceived. and carried out by the people themselves if they would produce or even floor it with the idea of making a film like this probably be branded as crazy. now is the sentiment. the soviets were brave resisting. that's going to change of course after the war once the cold war begins. people think that hollywood is

a free. now what i define ali is a call to dream manufacture which i think's true but i think equally it's a problem and the fact. is your media a reflection of reality. in a world transformed. what will make you feel safe. isolation or community. are you going the right way or are you being led so. direct. what is true what is faith.

in the world corrupted you need to descend. to join us in the depths. or a made in the shallowness. more than a 100 whereas in france signed an open letter to president prime follow what they've brown to his administration's unfair distribution of vaccines around the country we hear from one of the signatures. only 4 percent of the party color you population received 2 doses of the facts and this is not enough especially compared to the rest of the country. before might have unrest in minnesota where anger over the killing of don't erode by police shows.