cache injections for the pentagon made possible only by hysteria about russia and the cause sold habits die hard after a century of bashing russia in all its forms. the american media just can't shake the habit. well, they don't have really any idea. they're simply surmising where these attacks are coming from. they don't have any way of sourcing these attributions. because this is merely, these are merely face of a baseless assertion. there could be a major cipher event coming up in the near future, and they want to have a ready, a ready scapegoat in russia. for some reason. i mean, there are all kinds of indications that something is of foot. in terms of cyber security. it's merely a kind of a, a troth to constantly say russian hackers it's,

it's just the common trope that they're throwing around without any evidence whatsoever. well, it could be going to a penalty shoot out here with the euro. 20. what the final england in italy still won. what details become here soon went off 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 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 infected. ah

ah. 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 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 pieces confidentiality claims of the africans. so there is a balance to be found between transparency as much as possible,

but also to protect the investment of companies to they are product innovation. that is, that companies have to submit studies. so you're being commission, they do the study themselves. they have to submitted 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 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 ask to the scientist 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 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 f that does is it i'm relies with all of that 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 won't publish all the details and what a lot of people want to see because there are people for our 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 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, have no relationship whatsoever with industry ever. so if you are a scientist 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 a part

of the problem and something else that needs to be hanes 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 hollingsworth, monsanto, 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, i thank you very much for your colleagues to the 2nd panel, which will look at the transparency and use of scientific studies and dss one the life of 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. 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 satan 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 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 geno 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 would 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 vulnerability and epidemiology toxicology, geno talks, missouri officials even predicted the going 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'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. and that is important to mention that we are doing the proper independent assessment according with the resources that we have left. so according to the regulation that focus on the use of the 2000 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 the 2nd, the 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 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 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 i arc at monsanto's requests. so that is not an independent assessment. how can we therefore expect that on the

basis of such robust scions 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 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 since when does that make a scientist dishonest? 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 and call it but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as a scientist. ah. i me the news. as part of the international mega science research 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 order for the living authority of the 1. 13 deal, it's clay to teach as a country samantha, moment summer glove. we just go play niga evolution here from gulf that i don't want to even move this, who just put it could just put that in the in. ah, now 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 a 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 a 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'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 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 to 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 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, you do fine to report that clearly explain that this is not happening. we are seeing corporate capture not only in the sciences it 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 smith, i am, i see your search too much for calling to see when people are supposed to go out and get in over a 1000000 remarks. phone talk to mom directly listed soccer boat district has a $1000000.00 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'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 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 range. i see on is a total of the village left on this unit, but a lot of stuff that hung up on him for the last are going to you know, one thing that i live in like one of our little us. but i feel like machine or banded, but i'm in total control. 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 off today, it's 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. baker was not the murderer. it is a car was exist 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 betty 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 that. the g m and the pesticides were dealing with g m plants that were developed 30 years ago. nothing has changed. it's b, t and other side resistance since the beginning it's old chemical personally 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 cocktail, 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 who come from it. 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 as one great . for me. oh yeah. you want to add something, we need to add something. because 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 and it'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 i i in

in the when alex seemed wrong. when all just don't need you to fill out this thing because the attitude and engagement equals the trail so many find themselves. well, the part we choose to look for common ground in the

the headlines here on our team to national calibrated make sweeping gains and gun us on joe biden. admit the group is the strongest in decade for the us present. if it's still taking american boots off the ground, by the end of next month, we should have the company that we get us got a suburb, and log in. terrorism is not emanating from that part. to serving things of fell calm in belgium as microns go to extremes, and that's fine for a silent though, authorities and system, they will not be blackmailed. and kristen from the us the right to try again to expedite julian songs. however, one of the, with the below is the oldest friends, believes washington's attempts at the end of the day will disappear.