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 prisoners deemed a danger to the state. that was the foundations of the method of psychological interrogation, psychological torture, disseminated within the us intelligence community, and worldwide among allies for the next 30 years, to the victim say they still with the consequences today the so if someone wants to authorize abroad 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 disable 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 business 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 study. so you are being 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 home system, the communication agencies and the regulatory agencies have the same scientist. 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 asked to leave 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 all on resources. so people time, a lot of time,

a lot of money on doing this research. what else does, is it, i'm allies of all of that 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 will publish all the details and what a lot of people want to see because there are people for a relative eyes, all of 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 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, have no relationship whatsoever with industry ever. so if you are a science, if in europe having a, 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 being 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 be that when the, 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 mine santo and with me is my partner, eric laughter and to his right is john kayla. and next to john is mimi line line, am i in the

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 and 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 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 in 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 let's, it's 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 gene toxicity. questions arising from 5 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 wouldn't be destroyed, i can say absolutely. and to go like 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

a parent 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 vulnerable and epidemiology toxicology, geno talks, montana officials even predicted the glasses they would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to ethan eka. 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 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, hasn't that important to mention that we are doing the proper independent

assessment at the accordion 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 this 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 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 they're really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against or 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 and you can make a decision to protect that 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 science 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 person plan does that make a science has dishonest? 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 cause 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. ah.

i join me every 1st day on the alex summon show when i was speaking to guess in the world, the politics sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then me hello. this is driven by dream shaped by those with the in me i think we dare to ask in

as part of the international mega science with that project. neither is being built into. it's going to allow the scientists to study matter. they believe it existed just a part of the big bang. good form. ah, you were more flu shane in the order for the delivery of 41. this one 1st deal. it crated. the chest. the montage moment some go out and we just go play. niga evolution zillow, i hear from go that i don't want to even move this, who just put that in the

me know, you're going to be in the region where inference is 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 to seek 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 in when science meets values.

and it's becoming complicated, we come with science with evidence we do and 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 life. so they won the food, so you are protecting the bees, you're doing the right thing really going 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 i have 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 fine to report 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, often 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 am i seem to much for calling to see when to push auto both out and fit in over a 1000000 remarks. hotel commodity direct to mr. saca both fisher because a $1000000.00 bill out to 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'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 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 lead too far. oh, me too much. well, they shook up their shown us $100.00 for a total of the village to my unit. but a lot of stuff that i 100 funding for it in last are going to be you know, once you let that i live in the need like a little us. but i feel like mission abandoned, but i'm in total bill can travel. i can see that when i get

off the list, but i can see that that me so yes, precautionary principle is and guys 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 of today, 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 in the house. no, no airbag no, no a b s. 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 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 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. it's b, g,

and other side resistance. since the beginning it's old chemical, personal innovation. the innovation is that we now have, in addition to round of ready and run a business complaint, we have become a resistant plans m 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 acro, fruit 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 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 a collie bree affair. so i'm just a little bird in the system. doing my job as much. right. that's 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 in i i

in awe the the whatever

the when i would show the wrong one. i'll just don't rule out the thing because the after an engagement equals the trail when so many find themselves will depart. we choose to look so common ground

in the paris is refusing to reveal to l g, a relocation of radioactive waste dumps 6 decades on from colonial friends, conducting nuclear. an orchestrated attack by foreign mercenaries that haiti has discard the assassination of his president for suspects of being killed in a shootout with security forces to others detained and 4 years after devastating fire the la doesn't live through them. that apartment block in central london totally got into search for justice, goes on they really do believe they go away with money. but nevertheless we're still fighting to suit the justice.

ah.