alas may end appears to be near washington's 20 year efforts to nation bill and dennison was always going to end this way a complete and total failure. it is doubtful. the corrupt government in kabul will last long after the american withdrawal of dennis and remains broken and the american people poor and no one is held to account the 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 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 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 predict the investment of companies into their products. innovation that is, that companies have to submit studies to your commission. they do the studies themselves, they have to submit it to the european mission and to so the europe in 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 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 the priest, what is

a truth in no, you ask to these scientists and regulatory agencies, what is the truth and they are the same manner as magician, you know, because they work on secret compounds with secret effects. they say that you cannot delish 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 year of all the resources, so people time a lot of time and money on doing this research at what after does it analyze 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 our relative eyes all of because so it's 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 before 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, 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 the euro, 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 a 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 goes right 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 you 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 remind 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 know your colleagues to the 2nd fennel,

which will look at the transparency and use of scientific studies. and the guy 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 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 sate is not one of truth, but one of deceit. it's sort of a treasure trove 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 saving around. 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 in 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 that's a 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 it's,

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 vulnerable lety and epidemiology. toxicology geno talks muslim officials even predicted the glad to say would warrant a possible or probable rating. with respect to ethan 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 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 the important to mention that we are doing the proper independent assessment according with the resources that we have never have gotten into 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 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 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 after i really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position to be against i 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 their people. that if somebody, you know, he 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 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 in college. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as a scientist. ah.

i me the news. the climate i contributor we found 25 years ago took only 4 days to go around the stars, which means to finance is very close. so that was really the big surprise. and we have learned since then, own system is maybe one amongst many. that's not the archetype that's not the start out way to our planet. and i'm of the shots because everybody was expecting the planet to all the same 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 to the big bang, good form ah, more flu shane and the for the, for the children are here. the one you want to deal with a great to teach as a country, samantha bama, some are glad that we just go play niga evolution here from go that i don't want to even move this who just plays credits, book and that is the the people with diabetes to number raises, whether it's not adequately managed or that they have some immune problem then

their risk of infections and something like the kind of the 19 pandemic was very bad news. the people diabetes. and we consider it as one of the very high risk situations in terms of people being infected. the know 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, 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 want the full f, 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 there should not say that, i have to say this relatively safe, so as to must be corrupt. i find it's 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

who 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 of like me. oh i i'd like to say seems to be very highly charged. not because of the safety of life or say, but because of gm, because of monsanto because of international trade. maybe even because of inequality with global trade charges us i guess it's too much for calling to, to see when to push auto both out and put in a robot, done a 1000000 remarks. and martin luther directly to index to list of

people saw the boat district as a 1000000 toya fill out 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 the guess to make sure they're safe? or do we want to make sure there is 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. 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, me too much. well, they shook up their shown us $100.00 for a total of the village left on this unit for him clock and tickets that hung up on

him for the last or, you know, one thing that i live in, atlanta is when the bus home put him on us, but i feel like michelle abandoned into to be in a contract home. i can see that when i get that in of the list, but i can think 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 and has 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 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 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. it's p t and other side resistance. since the beginning it's old chemical personally innovation in the innovation is that we now have in addition to round of ready and run a business complaint, we have become resistant plan am to for d resistant plays. so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that innovation has to get out. 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 come from 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 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 cali bree affair. so i'm just a little bird in the system doing my job as mentioned, right. great. know 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 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 ah,

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy foundation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic. development only personally i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time, time to sit down and talk. alas, we end appears to be near washington's 20 year. however, to nation bill and half dennison was always going to end this way. a complete encoder failure. it is doubtful, the corrupt government in kabul will last long after the american withdrawal of dennis and remains broken and the american people poor and no one is held to account the the,

the the us president joe barton that makes the thought about is stronger than it's been in 20 years putting say that doesn't mean i've got to on will fall for the medicine that the claims americans mission in the country as been accomplished. but it's time to leave. the paris is refusing to reveals all 0 that location of roy you active waste 6 decades on from colonial, from conducting nuclear in the country folks, news, host talk coulson claims the, as i spied on his communications and linked private journalists, alleging that it's all because he tried to secure an interview with the russian president ah.