o i 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 pieces 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 product innovation. that is, that companies have to submit studies to european commission. they do the studies 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 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 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 are the same manner as magician. you know, because they work on secret compounds, we secretly affect 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 taste, 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. what that does is it analyzes 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 want to see because there are people for 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 all been published, but you're talking about several 1000 pages. i don't know who it is. my mind would

sit down and we 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 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, 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 funds studies through the university 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 drive 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 her on her, jo hollingsworth remind santo and with me is my partner, eric lasker,

and to his right. as john kayla and next to john is mimi line line. am i in the thank you very much. no, we moved here to the 2nd panel which will look at the transparency and use of scientific studies of life. i 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

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, 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 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 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 the stock. 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 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 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 that fears this. it says internally that it knew it had vulnerable 80 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 define 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, have got 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 publish, publicly released 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 report. so there's a lot of concern about whether or really didn't pen 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 you can make a decision to protect their 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 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 scientist 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. 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 don't know. do you build this notion? we knew he would fit with she who gets home later to love me because she knew she wouldn't be

a little girl. but i was nice to meet the teacher, julia totally traditional. but she's she's, she's really pushing one best for me. please don't let us keep up said for me and the last word with the metro. okay. she yeah. so i love this deal and that is what i mean. you know, the new new new which is what friday. if you give me a call back, i do see exactly what he put up when i got to pull it up on that. got

me when i went to the wrong one. all right, i just don't need you to fill out the thing because the after an engagement equals trail, when so many find themselves world far as we choose to look for common ground in i know you're going to be in the region where influence 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 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 in when science meets values and it's becoming complicated. we come with science with evidence. we do 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 continuance, insecticides, politicians love life. so they won the ford f. so you are protecting the bees. you're doing the right thing. really good to act on air, so we all applaud to you. and if the same process with the same people, we use the same scrutiny comes 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, i have 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 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 it seems to be very highly charged. not because of the safety of clients say, but because of gm, because of monsanto because of international trade, maybe even because of inequality with global trade charges my see

your system. i was just calling to see when people are talking about unbidden robot . yeah. and milly ogden, marks son martin luther directly to index to list of people such a good feature as in 1000000 dollar fill out for 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 that 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 like a 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 also, i think europe needs to make a decision whether we know i think i stop here. yes, i don't believe too far. oh

well they don't. shook up. then it has shown us a $100.00 for a total of the village left on this unit for him clock and ticket stuff hung up on him for last are going to you know, one thing that i live in the school, neither one of them little us but i, we have a local machine or abandoned, but i'm in total control home. i can see that that's good enough. enough. is that dollars, but i think it will not can think that that me so yes, precautionary principle is and guys, antibiotic 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 and you say 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 and i knew a b. s. and, and yet z, a 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, the things idea of bessie says of 950. you know, where fantastic. but by then, there were very with bessy side, and then we discover that they 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. 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 developed 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 of ready. busy and roundup resist implant, we have become resistant plans am to for the resistance place. so we're getting an even more cock to toxic cocktail that innovation

has to get out and it just has to get out 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 help issues, emergency issues, social issues. 3rd 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 mentioned. right.

great. know for me though. 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 gym. 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

oh, i use me. ah, ah.

ah people with diabetes or number raises, whether it's not adequately managed or that they have some immune problem. then their risk of infections and something like the coven 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 in the

the, the ah, top stories of the week here on our t at the taliban makes sweeping gains enough honest on joe biden admit, the group is out his strongest in decades, the us president is still taking american boots off the ground by the end of next month. you know, mission accomplished. competition that we get to scott, some in loudon in terrorism is not emanating from that far little disturbing scenes of self harm in belgium, migrants go to extremes in the fight for asylum, although authorities insist that they will not be blackmailed. and britain grant us the right to try again to extra juliessa. however, one of the whistleblower was oldest friends believes washington's attendance will ultimately fail.