it didn't have to be so complicated. so if someone wants to authorize a product in europe let's say a plant protection product this person because this person or this company the applicant has to provide data that allows us as the risk a says us 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 predict 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. so 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 communication engine sees in the regular to reargue and sees have the

same scientists and they work in order to promote the commercialization of their products. 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 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 of something where 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 and a lot of money on doing this research. what i've said does it analyzes 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 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 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.

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 scene willing to provide it but it's sunday collecting. joints work for monsanto and with me it's my partner. who's right here with. you know.

the. thank you very much for your courage to this 2nd panel which look. at transparency and use of scientific studies and yes this month of life proceed in the united states and the 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 like to say 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.

2012 months and was very worried about you know toxicity questions arising from research gauge her needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting with bill hayden 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 therefore we have 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 said itself it feared the i.r. preview when it found in a 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. officials even predicted the glyphosate would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to. the process is defined as a peer review and i understand that 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 a proper independent assessment. according to sources that we have enough so according to the focus on the use of the active and based. news regarding the independence from industry is clear in the legislation i would say the. basic principle big companies are the ones to market something the you must pay for the assessment so this studies have conducted by industry to go 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 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 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 report if you look at it has taken directly certain language from the monsanto documents and just placed it in the us the report so there's a lot of concern about whether s. i really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against iraq at monsanto request so the. it 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 side to states honest 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. l. look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. i robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders that conflict with the 1st law. should be very careful about artificial intelligence at the point of use the brakes. and shia. areas and with artificial intelligence where some of the.

robot must protect its own existence with. westmead national poll just out of you know when you've been eating less meat that's only sit it was a propagandist you also and it's your kind of scene from the regular morgue you're more your partner are going to be moving from our previous. water source like you would all but us lucifer mistletoe is just that of the guys that i'm just i have no queen nobody it is not my achievement mr davies are 5 you have plans for can see the need and get it out by the people themselves if alan would produce or even flirted with the idea of making a film like this they'd probably be branded as crazy. how was the sentiment during

the war the soviets were brave heroes resisting the nazis that's going to change of course after the war but once the cold war begins. little people think that hollywood is a free place but only what is strictly defined by only one side of the business and the other side is idealist. how would i define hollywood is they call it a dream manufacturer which i think's true but i think equally it's a problem in the fact.

no europe 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 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 decide 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 it's a comes with an opinion let's say and they only continue it's insecticides. politicians love if so. wonderful to have so you're protecting the beast 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 your life is it people say i'm sorry i don't like this outcome 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 life but because of g.m. because of monsanto because of international trade maybe even because of inequality with global trade you for shocks of tries. and you say it's the most difficult to the states it's very true for starts with both iraq and president obama. marks from the part you're from are very used to for 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 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. 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 that i think europe needs to make a decision whether we know i think i'll stop you. yes i thought

leads to follow. 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 last 101 telephone anything honest i don't often even list left on my mission is what i am plump and think instead i'll hunt up a name for it in the last are going to be like that i live in nothingness when enough like on t.v. i press one if going to hump or from bloomberg to sell us but if we like a machine open it but i'm into opium in a country. and he got a pass from the can of a hunt in the north is that i list but if we. do not come to that that of the other.

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 pressures and. this is a risk. 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 in the house no one had no air by going on new 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 by then 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 is changed it's another side resistance since the beginning it's all chemicals or something of asian. innovation is that we now have in addition to round up ready and run

a business to plant we have become resistant plants and to for the resistant plants so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that's innovation. it has to get it's just has to get a. benefit 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 preferred 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 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 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 our own thing we need to as. 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 i am . the end. to the end

. he leaves. just like freeze dried water you just add water. and then after that it's hard just to add to our peers to tell confer $100000.00 all you need is the ark to go with it but you got the joke and just don't have the heart just at heart it's freeze dried are freeze dried box it's freeze dried. it's freeze dried money it's it's sold as if it's something in a can they just need to what it is of the says

a bit. loose but ok so what's this you do. you have to show the 1st one to. produce conformable it would remove. the choice of useful to do and do. you think if it was national guard coming off. the top. of the pretty cute. to little. it's a little closer to the schools which. will support school board of these clinics one of 2 schools of getting new because the. machine you don't want to be smeared. all over the city.

impose someone new to be unique because one of those a close call if you know who is 80. going. a 4th night about rest to minnesota where anger over the killing of don't tell you right why police that shows no sign of letting up to come c.n.n. director has secretly filmed his missing his channel's spreads propaganda despite having a slogan claiming to be the most trusted media outlet and one and a half 1000000 french citizens are getting an unfair share of the country's vaccine supplies that's the accusation being thrown president marc.