i was just scared i was a scared little girl of 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 plan protection product dispersant because this person or this company the applicant has to provide data that allows us 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 allow us to assess the safety 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 the 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 the whole system the communication engine seas and the regulatory had been ceased 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 ask to these scientists 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 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 a lot of money on doing this research. what i've said 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 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. but 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. 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. when you're out of joe in 2 or 3 months santo and with me

is my partner of last year. who's right who's here with. next to me right. the. thank you very much for your courage to this 2nd panel which look. at the transparency and use of scientific studies and yes this month of july for a seat 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 the same around it 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 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 individua. 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 a research gauge kirkland monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that we're persisting with 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 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 an n 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 f c n n. you know absence of process is defined as

a peer review and i understand that and that's why 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 regulations that focus on the use of the active and based on. we got to be in the independence from industry is clearing 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 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 at 70 point if you look at it has taken directly certain language from the monsanto documents and just placed it in. the reports are 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. at 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 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 yes it's been a long time since i was in college. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as a scientist. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy foundation let it be an arms race is on often very dramatic development only personally i'm

going to resist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical time to sit down and talk. is your media a reflection of reality. in . world transformed. what will make you feel safe from. isolation will community. are you going the right way or are you being led so. direct. what is true watch is faith. in the world corrupted you need to descend. to join us in the depths. aura maybe in the shallowness.

and use a bit like it's a malt. you noticed at the 1st one to open your eyes to just a little bit of hundreds. that's awesome you just want to do a good except. the thing i was national guard can pull off. a thought and up but if you. look a little. bit from what it was from a typical submissive. little full support school board of these clinics going up to the school is a good in your beliefs because they've been. pushing into life the dismay of. those who those. opposed someone to be lenient because with

a hostile if you believe that age you. know you're against to be in a region where influence is very high and all the regions look at 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 and it's scientific process of risk assessment but then this 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 only on the couldn't know it's insecticides. politicians love if so. wonderful have so you're protecting the peace you're 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. 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 test. 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 this is 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 classes but because of g.m. because of monsanto because of international trade maybe even because of inequality with global trade. and your system must be some of the seats very few for such a book about it in that oprah. be obnoxious from there from our. studios to teach extreme. searchin for mr van impe you for science for both good and sr to . follow.

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. 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 or stop you. yes i thought leads to far. enough in this to nothing on this from which the mice when they don't suffer the impulse to cut off the gun there then in question asked of a 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 luck and the other bashfulness going to hop over from plymouth to sell us but if we like a machine open it but i'm into the opium. trade. back and he got the best from the

kind of a hunk in the home here is that i list but if we. do not come to that. of the mother. oh yes precautionary principle 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 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 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 the way b.s. and and yet the a 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 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 to cumber resistant plants and 2 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. 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 aircraft 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 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 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 colleague really i fear so i'm just a little bird in the system doing my job as much as i. know for the yeah you want to our own thing going into us 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 ale. the air

. bag . a i. want to. see.

what's needed national well that's not on you know when you've been imaging less than that solicit it to prevent. her from the regular morgue or you're more your partner are going to be moving from that. oh. water source i.q. to all but us lucifer mistletoe is just that i'm like i don't i'm just playing. it is not my achievement mr davies our 5 year plans were conceived baby needs and carried out by the people themselves if the power would produce or even floor it 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. i.

think that hollywood is a free place but really what is strictly defined by one side of the business and the other side is ideology. how would i define hollywood is they call it a dream manufacture which i think's true but i think equally it's a problem in the fact. that states is not looking to kick off a cycle as collation in conflict with russia moscow slaps the u.s. with sanctions in retaliation for washington's imposing restrictions on russia just a bit earlier in the week. last. week up on the rest of the u.s. state of minnesota where the police killing of dante right shows no.