oh, that is that companies have to submit studies to your commission. they do the study themselves, they have to submit it to the european commission and to accept. so the european food safety authority and they have a panel of experts that looks at the studies and then they say ok, safe or not. so what we have found is that within these expert panels, you have a lot of people with dice with the food industry. so that means a conflict of interest me in. so as a whole system, the communication agencies and the regulatory agencies have the same scientists. and they work in order to promote the commercialization of their products. i. 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 a truth in no, you ask to these scientists and regulatory agencies. what is the truth and they act in the same manner as magician? you know, because they work on secret compounds with secret effects. they say that you cannot publish that. however they say they have the truth. i if you spend a huge amount of money doing study a study or something where 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 and all resources. so people time, a lot of time and money on doing this research at what after does it our lives is all about to publish the results. so it will publish, it will come out with the statement at the end and it will publish the results, but it won't publish all the details and what a lot of people want to see because there are people for a relative eyes all because that's 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 1000 pages. i don't know who in his white mind would sit down and read through all of those pages. i think some parts can be blacked up, but i would insist that that's to do with privacy. so the relationship between all companies and research institute 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 a 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 scientists in europe, having any kind of dealing with a company, closes the number of avenues of work later. so again, we are really champions and creating difficulties for ourselves in europe, but the rest of the world is doing fine. part of the problem and something else that needs to be changed is all the industry is fund many laboratories and fund studies through the universities,

which to 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, draft a paper and they go straight 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 a circular, synergistic effect between the universities needing the money and the company's being willing to provide it, but it's sunday collecting, putting around, or jo hollingsworth for months santo. and with me is my partner, eric lasker, and to his right is john kayla. and next to john is mimi line line. am i

in the thank you very much for your correlation to the 2nd panel, which will look at the transparency and use of scientific studies assessment of life. i said in the united states and 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 spend 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 life to say is not one of truth. but one of deceit is sort of a treasure trove, or look inside,

very big and powerful company that has been very secretive 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 license 8 and round up. another way in which montana has manipulated regulators and the public is by establishing networks of scientists around the world to support its agenda. and it's message about the safety of this chemical, monsanto, and, or the monsanto back alexis, a task force, pays them the 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 montana was relied on in the

2012. my son was very worried about geno toxicity questions arising from black to say, research, when it engaged, kirkland, monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting. what bill hayden's wrote in the 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 us being responding to the influence of one stakeholder over another because those reputations wouldn't be destroyed, i can say absolutely. and trust the golly categorically this paper was not ghost written. we all import our own sections to paper. there was no input

involvement or influence of the review by monsanto. thinking care. well, it seems apparent. monsanto actually fears real independent authentic science. monsanto said itself, it feared the i r f review when it found in in 2014. this is before i sat down before the classification. monsanto says it fears this. it says internally that it knew it had the owner ability and epidemiology toxicology geno talks. muslim officials even predicted the glasses they would warrant a possible or probable rating. with respect to ethan ecker. you know, as a process is defined as a peer review and i understand that and that i don't have a problem with that peer review problem in this case is that's not what 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 to mention that we are doing the proper independent assessment at the accordion with the resources that we have left. so according to the regulation that focus on the use of the active settings and based on that we generate the risk assessment regarding the independence from industry is clearing the legislation. i will say the say is the basic principle, the company that wants to market something the you must pay for the assessment. so this studies are conducted by industry. there is no doubt the current process is scientifically flawed. it is time to have an independent panel of scientists, the evaluate, the way in which the science is reviewed. there is a need for the regulatory agencies to re analyze the data and there is a need to public, 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. the 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 they're really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against or at month samples request. so that is not an independent assessment. how can we therefore expect that on the basis of such robust scions and i'm quoting industry, we can make a decision. politicians in the you 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 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 organization and their science panels because they have been accused of having worked with the industry. but since when does that make a scientists dishonest? the 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 call it. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as

a scientist. ah. the financial through i'm john did a little about money laundering 1st to see this and this is a good start. well, we have our 3 banks all set up here. maybe something in europe, something in america, something overseas, in the cayman islands, you never know how these banks are complicit in their club piper. so we just have to give me a call and say, hey, i'm ready to do some serious laundry. okay, let's see how we did. well, we've got a nice luxury watch for max in for stacy. oh, beautiful jewelry. and how about automobile?

again, format, you know what money laundering is? highly legal. sophia cook spots ah, to don't to leave. you will move a toy new she will turn when she gets home later to love me as soon as she to a little girl for i was in the study. i took me to teach julia. she was, she's a really pushing issue. the one you need from me was over. she said for meeting last week with the metro. okay

. she yeah. she felt i love this deal and that is what i need from the new new new which is about what if the new i see executable football was quite up when i got to pull it up on that got me. ah, no, you're going to be in the region where influences very high and other regions look at europe for, for regulation. and

that's why it's so important that europe keeps regulation which is scientific, which is database in which as much as possible decides without 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 an idyllic process of risk assessment, but then this evidence is given on another stage on the policy level. there believes 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 it's a comes with an opinion, let's say on the, on the continuing it's insecticides politicians love if so they want the food. so you are protecting the bees. you're doing the right thing. really good to act on there. so we all applaud to you, and if the same process with the same people, we use the same scrutiny comes with the conclusion. let's say i'm glad to say people say, i'm sorry, i don't like this outcome. if there should not say that dr to say this relatively safe, so f 2 must be corrupt. i find this very bizarre, you know, regulations is independent of corporate influence and, and it's everything is tested actually tested

and with a lot of money and our authorities are looking at it independently. i don't know where these people have been living even in some of the mainstream journals, you do find reports that clearly explain that this is not happening. we are seeing corporate capture not only in the sciences it sciences is one of the fields we see corporate capturing in every walk of like me, oh i i'd like to say it seems to be very highly charged. not because of the safety of life to say, but because of gm, because of monsanto, because of international trade. maybe even because of inequality with global trade

. superchargers us m i c. and your search too much for calling to see. when people are supposed to go out and bid in a robot. yeah. and milly ogden marks, phone talk to mom and lose her direct to list of sites for both good circus. $1000000.00 loves me. 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 again, to make sure they're safe? or do we want to make sure there's no conflict of interest? what is the objective is the safety of the product? because of the conflict of interest of the, of the scientist, i think we need to be a bit more honest and trustworthy without falling into the

mistake sense. so that's not something that we are looking for. i mean the, the, the experts we use are as independent as possible, but i think also here, it's not black or white. it's not, sir, or one that's not a digital binary approach. we have to find the right balance between the best expertise. which means people that have done research the people that are with both their feet in the scientific endeavor, and on the other end to make sure that there is no conflict of interest. and if i may say also, i think europe needs to make a decision whether we know i think i stop here. yes, i don't live too far. oh,

well they shook up there. that's shown us a $100.00 for a total of the village to my unit. but a lot of stuff that i 100 funding for in last are going to, you know, once you let it, i live in like 100, a 100 little us. but i feel like mission abandoned, but i'm in control. i can see that when i get enough of the list, but if it is not, can be county that me so yes, precautionary principle is and guys to fix. and it is, i think,

the issue for europe and economy in general because it reduces the willingness of investment. ah, there is a risk in registering a new purchase. this is a risk. this is a benefit. i'm a willing to take this risk. yes or no, and the regulation today gives us an answer. if you look at the car of today, it's much safer than the car yesterday. you know, the 1st car that i drove in when i was a boy and my father was writing, had no safety belt. and how's no, no airbag no, no a b s and, and yet z, a call maker was not the murderer. it is a car was a and it was a very safe car for the time. and i'm not saying that the bessie says off 1950. you know where? fantastic. but by then they were very weak bessy side. and then we discover that

have some side effects, and then the regulation evolves and regulation becomes more demanding. and especially sides are bond or are withdrawn from the company. and that's normal, that's normal evolution of any industry. the power of innovation doesn't come from the big companies and the companies are too big to be innovative anymore. they just want to preserve that privileges, but they're not innovating anymore. or it look at look at the the g m and the pesticides were dealing with g m plants that were develop 30 years ago. nothing has changed. its p t and other side resistance since the beginning. it's old chemical, partial innovation innovation is that we now have in addition to round of ready. busy and run a business complaint we have become resistant plans, am to for d resistant plays. so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that

innovation has to get out and it just has to get out benefit versus risk, right? what is the ratio willing to accept on the arm and even if it's very small, in order to have a safe and affordable food supply. ah, to me, the defining factor in the future will also be around the food system. if we manage to get our, in my view dysfunctional agrifood system on a sound, environmental, economic, social, and economic basis, then we solve everything else. we can even climate change in these things, health issues and mental issues, social issues, there collateral, they're all part of this whole thing that is connected and the connect,

the connecting center piece is food and how you produce, ah ah, because we see the world as it is we are, in fact the border edge of the revolution 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 pier hobby. he said this is the cali brea affair. so i'm just a little bird in the system doing my job. as mentioned. right. great

. know for me though. yeah. you want to or something we need to see, cause 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. we're not going to, there are lots of other technology. there's 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. i in i

i in in

ah, we're used to hearing he will lead messaging about the importance of values. not everyone in the block agrees. in fact, a growing number of conservative and populous forces are speaking out against what subtle call brussels colonial outlook. conservatives and populace. talk the language of family and culture. it leaks talk a value to create a european superstate me the news i is your media a reflection of reality the

in a world transformed what will make you feel safe for tyson lation community? are you going the right way or are you being that somewhere? direct what is true, what is faith in the world corrupted. you need to defend the join us in the depths will remain in the shallows. ah, in the british and american governments have often been accused of destroying lives in their own interests. while you see in this, these techniques is the state devising message to end essentially destroy

personality of an individual lifetime. means this is how one doctors, theories were allegedly used in psychological warfare against the prisoners deemed a danger to the state. that was the foundation for the method of psychological interrogation, psychological torture, disseminated within the us intelligence community, and worldwide among allies for the next 30 years. to have the victim say they still, with the consequences today. ah, the ah

ah, watching all scenes and actually not headlines this hour the caribbean nation is, has imposed martial law of the shock us the nation of its president at his home. leading scientific journal in the u. k. cause russia spurn, job safe and effective. stressing the lack of severe side effects, such as blood clocks linked to other coded vaccine rivals. from a german red cross member who's raising the alarm about a growing number of those, skipping their appointments for a 2nd current job. there's a covey hesitancy. trend continues to sped worldwide. the.