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. stop 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 panel so you have a lot of people with ties with the food industry so that means a conflict of interest. so overt home 3 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 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 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 with secret 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 when there's a lot of confidential information 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 and a lot of money on doing this research. what if that 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 for it for a 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 to.

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 needing 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 why.

the. thank you very much we move your courage to the 2nd panel we 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 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. let me tell you that the story of the

company's top selling chemical 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 life the same around it another way in which my center 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 like this a research when it engaged her when monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting what bill haden'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 paper there was no input involvement or influence of the review on months and 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 . we have doing in the proper independent assessment. according to sources that we have enough so according to the regulations that focus on the use of the active substance 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 kompany the ones to market something the e.u. must pay for the assessment so this by these are conducted by industry there is no doubt 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. really analyzed the data and there's

a need to publicly release all of you know and 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 profitable 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 f c 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 has 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 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 can 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 a call it. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as a scientist. then

you'll smell like it's a. this if. you give us the 1st one to open your mind the girls can stumble through a 100. i suppose

you just would want to accept. the thing i was national cockney. i thought. plenty. of the w. . it's a local shelter from the fullness. of. their capital support scoop what are these products going up to these mythical getting near the roof because they see. the shingle life to be a smear. just. to follow someone abusing it as a result of old style if you will a city to you. know

you are of dense to be in a region where influence is very high and as a region scooped up europe for good for regulation. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps a regulation which is scientific which is the other bays and which as much as possible. decides. being influenced by. by i would say by noise or by jurist. the 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 does 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. insecticides. politicians love if so. wonderful to have 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 young. people say i'm sorry i don't like this 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 tests to. 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 sciences this is 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 'd 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 good in that oprah. be obnoxious from there from our. studios to get your ex to meet you. for mr van impe you feel sad 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 are. 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 follow. but i think this time nothing on this from which the mice when they don't have the impulse to cut off the other there then that's fine last 101 telephone anything honest i don't want in the bill is left on my mission is what i am plump and think is that i 100 buying from here in the last are going to be like that i live in nothingness when enough and the other question of going to hop over from bloomberg to sell us but if we like a machine open it but i'm into opium in a country. like and he got the best from the canal hunt in the north is that the list but if we. do know that that of the

mother. so yes because the principle is and by scientific n.e.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 pressures and. this is a risk. this is a benefit i'm i willing to take this risk yes i know 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 driving 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 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 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 chemicals or something of asian.

innovation is that we now have in addition to round up ready and round resistant plants we have become resistant plants and 2 for de resistance plants so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that's innovation. has to get out 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 our acra foot system if we manage to get our in my view dysfunctional agra food system. on a sound and very mental 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 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 that but 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.

a a. a. a an . leg. length.

to go in a leg . or and. the world is driven by a dream shaped by. the

day or thinks. we dare to ask. just like freeze dried water just out of water rise and then. it's hard just as we are here to tell confer $100000.00 all you need is the ark to go with it but you got the joke and just you don't have the heart just at heart it's freeze dried are freeze dried balm it's freeze dried products 70 history started money it's it's sold as if it's something in a can they just need to ed what it is that the says it is. well that's not an hour when he believes in less than that solicit it to prevent.

her from the regular morgue you're more your partner going to provide. all those lucifer mr delicious that i'm like i don't i'm just nobody it is not my achievement mr davies are 5 feet of plans for conceit they need and get it out by the people themselves if al 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 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

a call to dream manufacture which i think's true but i think equally it's a problem in the fact. washington will pay the price for harming relations between the $2.00 that softer the u.s. announced 10 russian diplomatic personnel are being expelled from the country yet more sanctions are being slapped on moscow for alleged election meddling also to come this hour the french parliament passes a controversial for one global security something which had already angered human rights groups who fear it threatens to call out lisa peace and the c.n.n. director has called on count admitting his channel spreads propaganda spiting.