be branded as crazy. that was the sentiment during the war the soviets were brave heroes resisting the 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 only what is strictly defined by. the business and the other side is ideology. now with on hollywood is a call to dream anything which isn't 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 dispersant we call this person of these companies the

applicant has to provide data that. is the risk of says us whether this product is safe when all and this information comes from the applicant and the studies that are commissioned by the applicant to allow us to assess the safety 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 bucked 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 predict the investment of companies into their product innovations. that is that companies have to submit. study 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 overt home 3 stem the communication agencies and the regular to reaction cities 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 you know 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 on something where there's a lot of confidential information 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

a lot of money on doing this research. what if that 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. 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 doing for. 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. comes 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 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. out of joint's work for monsanto and with me it's my partner. who. is right here with. me right.

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 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 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 lifesaving 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 monsanto and or the months and back life is a task force pays them they lobby regulators they author papers essentially 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 gauge kirkland 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 therefore we have 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 to go 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.

seems apparent that monsanto actually fears real independent authentic scientists 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 months and officials even predicted that glyphosate would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to epson 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. accordingly we did so so that we have enough so according to the focus on the use of the active sessions and based on the. news we got to be in the independence from industry is getting the legislation i would say these are the basic principles big company the ones to market something the you must pay for the assessment so this by the 2nd doubt that the industry will go 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 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 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 f. they really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against. 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 particular scientists

should be banned from a panel or. research has been funded somewhere by someone 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.

i strongly believe that any milcher confirmation it will united states of russia

good love becomes a loving god so the escalation is emitted and is still a shock nobody lowside to live for this yet but there are so little bits of those so either the oic i sold my planes well show my warships well drawn but ok i agree let's start with no there will be need be it will be escalation but global best. know your of dense to be in a region where influence is very high and as a region look at europe for for regulation.

and that's why it's so important that europe keeps a regulation which is scientific which is databases in which as much as possible. decides who is out 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 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 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 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 tests. 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 seen corporate kept not only in the sciences 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 pacific seats

very few for such a good in that oprah and many other mocks from there from our. studios to each other extreme. searching for mr van impe you feel sad for both. beloved. but of course if the scientist 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. 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 stopped. yes i thought leads to far. out of what i've seen this done nothing only from which the mice when they don't

suffer the impulse to cut off he got there then and on last 101 telephone anything honest i thought of the bill is left on my mission is what i am plump and that is that i will 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 petronas can often put a from bloomberg to sell us but if we like a machine open it but i'm into. the country. 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 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 of.

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 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 in the house no one had no air buy good now new a.b.s. and and yet 0 economy. there was not a murder. the 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 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 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 a shift in. the innovation is that we now have in addition to roundup ready and around resistant plants 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 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 a 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 solved 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 the 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 or evolution. because humankind 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.

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 open there are lots of other technologies is not just about g.m.o. there are lots of other technologies coming up 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.

leg. or and the end. of the end.

i am he. then you should like it. if you do. you're just the 1st one to open your eyes for. a 100 words. you just sort of do that. if it was national. it's one with which you're going to pull from. these critics one of the police. because there's been. a shooting in the life that is

smeared. all over this if you go to. the polls someone into believing it because of the style if you believe that 80. psychiatric drugs are essential for millions of patients. they want that pill that they hope will take care of their problem thoroughly and rapidly in the short term they really work the problem is in the long term mostly disastrous suddenly stopping a drug 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 and very often there are full effects on it up to something terrible. trying to medicate life itself i just think i was in like

i was just scared and i was a scared little girl i was 24 and like. i didn't have to be so complicated. no states not looking to kick off a cycle. in conflict with russia slaps the united states with sanctions in retaliation for washington imposing restrictions on russia given the way. we can rest the scene in the u.s. state of minnesota where i'm going to over the police killing of dante right shows no sign of peace in. the c.n.n. directory secretly filmed admitting his.