over there are lots of blog posts, research and offers and stuff. i recommend you check it out, your latest pieces out there called too much liquidity and inflation assets and consumer prices. so this is definitely the biggest theme of 2021. and that is inflation, so if someone wants to authorize a product in europe, let's say a plan protection product. this person, because this person or this company, the applicant, has to provide data that allows us, as the risk assessors to judge whether these products the same 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 are paid by the applicant,

obviously. so it's the intellectual property of the applicant. and we can publish parts of the studies in the current legal framework, but we also have to respect the pieces, confidentiality claims of the africans. 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 europe in commission. they do the study themselves, they have to submit it to the european commission and to accept. so the europe, food safety authority and they as 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 people with dice with the food industry. so that means

a conflict of interest me in. so home 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 for the priest, what is a truth in no, you asked 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. we secretly 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 all resources. so people time, a lot of time and money on doing this research. what else does it i'm relies with all of that and publish the results. so it will publish and 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 don't see because there are people for of eyes all because well

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 it's 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 s, 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 are a scientists in europe, having any kind of dealing with

a company close at 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 a part of the problem and something else that needs to be changed is all the industry is fund many laboratories and funds 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 search, there are

a 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 from 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 awe. thank you very much. know your colleagues to the 2nd panel which will look at the transparency and use of scientific studies and assessment of life 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 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 life to say is not one of truth. but one of deceit is sort of a treasure trove. and look inside a 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 it. 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 the chemical, monsanto and, or the monsanto back like to say 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 in 2012. my son was very worried about gina 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 categorically, categorically this paper was not ghost written. we all import our own sections to the 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, montana 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 zone ability and epidemiology toxicology. dino togs muslim officials

even predicted the glad to say would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to ethan ecker. know s 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 not was, 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 is important to mention that we are doing the proper independent assessment according with the resources that we have enough. 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 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's a need for the regulatory agencies to re 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. the monsanto prepared certain documents for the registration and the s a 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 there really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against or at my samples 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 you can make a decision to protect that 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 within plan. does that

make a scientists dishonest? the why should having worked with the industry some years ago and a small project at some stage i did. i'm a scientist by training. 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. i ah.

to don't look to leave you room. this notion over 20 new he will tell when she gets home ready to love me because she knew she wouldn't be a little girl. but i was a nice to meet the teacher. julia control the traditional moving. but she's a really, if you see the one doing the best for me was good for me to in the last with metro. okay. sure. yeah. so this is what i need from the new

new, new new which is what friday. if you give me a call back to see exactly what it was, i got it all set up when i got it up on that, got mixed up with me . the british and american governments have often been accused of destroying lives in their own interest. 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. send out the victim, say they still, with the consequences today. ah, now you're going to be in the region where influences very high and also regions look at europe for, for regulation. ah, 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 results 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 is scientific process of risk assessment. but then this evidence is given on another stage on the policy level, their 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 it comes with an opinion, let's say on the, on the continuing it's insecticides politicians love life. 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 for say, people say, i'm sorry, i don't like this outcome. if so, should not say that dr to say this relatively safe, so as to 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 sciences is one of the fields we see

corporate capturing in every walk of life. mm. oh i i'd like to say seems to be very highly charged. not because of the safety of life to say, but because of jan, because of monsanto, because of international trade, maybe even because of inequality with global traits. superchargers us, my son, my son for call to see when the shots are both out and put in a 1000000 remarks. so i'm here tomorrow in the future. actually to index to list of people soccer, both good records in $1000000.00 fill out soon.

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 guess to make sure they're safe? or do we want to make sure there's no conflict of interest? what is the objective? is it 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're 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 mean 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 or something, i think europe needs to make a decision whether we know i think i stop here. yes, i don't live too far. oh, me too much. well, they shook their shown us and go into the nation. i live in the village unit, but i haven't clocked out 100 buying for it in last or you know that i live in need of like one of our little us but i like machine or banded but i'm in total

bill control home. i can see that that's good enough. enough, is that dollars, but i think we will not can think that that me so yes, precautionary principle is and guys on to fix any issues. 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. am i willing to take this risk? yes or no, and the regulation today gives us an answer. if

you look at the car off 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 writing, had no safety belt and has no, no airbag and no abs and, and yet, call maker was not a murderer. it is a car was a and it was a very safe car for the time. and i'm not saying that the best size of 950 you know where fantastic. but by then there were very with bessie side. and then we discover that they have some side effects and then the regulation evolves in 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. big companies are too big to be innovative anymore. they just want to preserve that privilege as, 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. it's b, g, and other side resistance. since the beginning it's old chemical partial innovation, innovation is that we now have in addition to round, ready and run the resist implant, we have become resistant plans am to for the resistance place. so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that innovation has to get out and it just has to get out of benefit versus risk, right? what is a 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 will come from even climate change and these things health issues are mental issues, social issues, 3rd collateral, they're all part of this whole thing that is connected and the connect, the connecting center piece is food and how you produces, 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 p. b. he said, this is a collie bree affair. so i'm just a little bird in the system. doing my job as much like are great for me. oh yeah. you want to or something we need to actually 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 i

in in the ah the

join me every thursday on the alex simon show and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politic sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. me

the who's in the headlines this evening from last the can be a nation apply. it imposes morsel law. 15 days for the shock. assassination of president and his leading scientists, john in the u. k. called russian footnote job safe and effective threats and lack of severe side effects such as blood clot linked to other are we able to, gemma red cross member who's raising the alarm over the growing number of those getting their appointments for a 2nd quote of our job as a cobra, it hasn't been trying to get pennies spread worldwide. ah,

lot from oscar. thanks for joining us all days and i show tonight. so i'm daniel hawkins.