can help reduce usage. talk today. thanks a lot. psychiatric

drugs are essential for millions of patients rather they want that pill that they hope will take care of their problem only and rapidly in the short term they really work the problem is in the long term and mostly disastrous suddenly stopping a drug can cause withdrawal symptoms more serious than the condition it was meant to treat instead of the beneficial effects of these different medicines ending up to something wonderful very often there are full effects add up to something terrible. trying to medicate life itself i just think i was in like i was just scared i was a scared little girl i was 24 and like. i didn't have to be so complicated.

so if someone wants to authorize a product in europe let's say a plant protection product dispersant because this person or this company the applicant has to provide data. as the risk assess those whether this product is safe or not and this information comes from the applicant and the studies that are commissioned by the applicant. to assess the safety paid by the applicant obviously so it's the intellectual property of the applicant and we can properly bartz of this 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 innovation. that is that companies have to submit studies to hear people 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 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 reargue and sees how 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 in the whole 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 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 where there's a law. 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 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 our relative eyes 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 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 for.

part of the problem and something else that needs to be changed is all the in. this tree 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 the circular center just take a fact between the universities needing the money and the companies being willing to provide it but it's sunday collecting. joins work from and santo and with me

it's my partner. who. is right. next to me why. thank you very much we move your courage to the 2nd panel which look. at transparency and use of scientific studies and yes this one to 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 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 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 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 and 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 but 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 leave any policy decision we all have decades of experience in the industry and then a full week of 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. sections to the pipe but 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 genome tox 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 the sussman. according to sources that we have enough so according to the focus on the use of the active and based on the. news regarding the independence from industry is clearing the legislation i would say these are the basic principles big company the ones to market something the e.u. must pay for the assessment so this studies have found out that the industry does go though 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. prove 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 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 the 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 that you 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 years it's been a long time since i was in college. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as a scientist. i mean this a bit like it's a. this is your. newest book the 1st one to open you mostly just finished a little bit of urgency.

that's awesome you just want to do on it except. to say i think it was national guard. at the base. of the w. . it's a local shelter from the school from. their capital support school board of these clinics one of the least musical did in italy because between. the shooting and the life of the smear. paula someone. is with us of style if you will is it easy.

to. know you're of dense to be in a region where influence is very high and all the regions who go to europe for good 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. being influenced by. i would say by noise or by just a more. 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 it's 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. 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. 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 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 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 the seats very few for such a book about that in the oprah. be obnoxious from there from our. studios to teach extreme. direction 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 scientist 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 that's the. yes i thought leads to fog. but i've seen this done nothing on this from which the mice when they don't have the impulse to cut off the gun there then in one last 101 telephone anything honest i thought of the bill is 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 be like that i live in nothingness when enough like on t.v. i bet on the going to hump a complement 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 can of a hunt in the north is that i list but if we. do

know that that of the mother. so yes precautionary principle is 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 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 with no air by going on new a.b.s. and and yet 0 economy. there was not a murder. a car was like this and it was a very safe car for the time and i'm not saying that because he says of 150. 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 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 chemical social innovation. innovation is that we now have in addition to round up ready and run a business templates we have become resistant plants and tool for deer resistant plants so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that's innovation. has to get out 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 agra food system. on

a sound and vironment economic social and economic basis. then we solved everything else will come from. even climate change and these things health issues and arbitrary shoes social issues they are collateral they're all part of the of this whole thing that is 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 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. vote 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. a a. a and . the end.

of the end . like freeze dried water just add water. and then. it's hard just to add. here's a child confer $100000.00 all you need is the ark to go with it but you've got the tank and just you don't have the artist at heart it's freeze dried are dried bought

it's freeze dried. it's free stride money it's it's sold as if it's something in a can they just need to what it is of the says if it. russia states the home of the relations between the u.s. and moscow. washington this comes off america and i'll fix the russian diplomatic personnel wall get more sanctions us now from moscow but will the blood and ministrations run the election meddling. the u.s. president says the symbol of deadline of september the 11th for withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan saying it's time to.