so if someone wants to authorize a product in europe, let's say a plan protection product. this person, because this person, this company, the applicant, has to provide data that allows us, as the risk assessors to judge whether these products disable or not. and this information comes from the applicant and this 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 business confidentiality claims of the applicants. so there is 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 european 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 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 the whole system, the communication agencies and the regulatory agencies have the same scientists. and they work in order to promote the commercialization of their

ah, 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 ask to leave scientists and regulatory agencies. what is the truth and they are the same manner as magician. you know, because they work on secret compounds, we secretly affects they say that you cannot to leash 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 i'm allies, is all about to 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 will publish all the details and what a lot of people want to see because there are people for our relative 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 opened, 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,

for in many parts of the world, that 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, have no relationship whatsoever with industry ever. so if you are a scientists in europe, having any kind of dealing with a company close as a 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 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 howling towards from on 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 ah

ah, thank you very much for your correlation to the 2nd panel, which will look transparency and use of scientific studies. and you guys said in the united states and hopefully will provide insight into the so called montana 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. the state is not one of truth, but one of deceit. it's sort of a treasure trove, or 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 life and state and around 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 lexus. 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 the

the in 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 or responding to the influence of one stakeholder over another because those reputations would be destroyed, i can say absolutely. and to golly, 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 2014. this is before i sat down before the classification. monsanto says it fears this. it says internally that it knew it had vulnerability and epidemiology toxicology geno talks. muslim officials even predicted the glass of state would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to s, an echo 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, was, was done. nobody went back and verified the findings on the original studies and bite 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, hasn't the important to mention that we are doing the proper independent assessment at the, according we 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 assessments 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 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 publish 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 place it in the, the report. so there's a lot of concern about whether or really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against arc 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 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. 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. i me. the

the the the the, the and i as part of this international mega science with that project. neither is being built into. it's going to allow the scientists to study matter, as they believe it existed adjusted to the big bang, good form. ah, more flu shane in the order for the delivery authority of the 191332 teach as

a country the montage. moment some go out and we'll just go play that nigger evolution 0. i hear from go that i don't want to even move this. we could use that as the in europe just to be in a region where influences very high and also regions look at europe for, for regulation. and that's why it's so important that europe keeps regulation which is scientific, which is a database in which as much as possible decides result being

influenced by by i would say by noise or by just emotions and fear when science me values that it's becoming complicated. we come with the science with evidence, we do an a scientific 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 s. so we all applaud to you, and if the same process with the same people, we use the same scrutiny cause we the conclusion, let's say i'm glad for 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 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. my assistant for calling to see when get this arts voted out and bid in a 1000000 remarks. so i'm here tomorrow in the future,

actually to index and to list of people such a boat. good. citric is a $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 to get 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 so. 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 serial 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 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. shown us a $100.00 for a nation,

a total of the village to my unit. but i am clocked out 100 funding for the last are going to be you know, once you let that i live in the unit will need like one after that. all of them little us. but i feel like mission abandoned, but i'm in total bill country home. i can see that that's good enough of the list. but if it is we will not come up with 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 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 z a call maker was not the murderer. the car was and it was a very safe car for the time. and i'm not saying that the bessie says off 1950. you know where fantasy, 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 to be 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 g and other side resistance since the beginning. it's old chemical, partial innovation. the innovation is that we now have in addition to round of ready 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 of 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 acro 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 come from even climate change and these things health issues and mental issues, social issues, there collateral, they're all part of the 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 and 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 peer hobby. he said, this is a collie bree affair. so i'm just a little bird in the system. doing my job as much right. great. now, for me, oh yeah. you want to or something we need to as she goes 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 jim all, 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

especial summer solutions where we look at the solutions. i'm here with stacy herbert now we've got a special guest, stacy, right out there, mccloud of gold money dot com. he raised amazing pieces over there are lots of blog posts, research, and all sorts of 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 ah, to don't want to leave you with this notion over 20 new. he will tell when she gets home ready to love me

as she knew she wouldn't be a little girl. but i was nice to meet the teacher. julia control the tradition of what she's a she's really, if you see the one you need from me was upset for me in the last with the metro. okay. shoot. i should check the i've always been on this deal and this is what i need from the new new new which is about what i do. if i see executable football once he put up when i got the seat up, when i got more, hello

me ah, the presidential assassination? haiti, the leader is gun down in his own home. the car to be a nation, described it of an orchestrated by foreign mercenaries for i've been shop there is refusing to reveal to our jury at the locations of radioactive waste 6 decades after colonial from conducted its nuclear tests. they're coming up a judge expense for 9 months in all cases filed by grant and fell survivors and fire fighters. there are suing companies involved in the refurbishment of the london power block where doesn't died in inferno.