the investment of companies into their product innovations. 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 f. so so the european food safety authority and they have a ton of experts that looks at the studies and then they say ok it's safe or not. so what we have found is that within these expert panel so you have a lot of people with ties with the food industry so that means a conflict of interest. so overt own 3 stem the communication agence he's in the regular to reaction cease have the same scientists and they were in order to promote the

commercialization of their product. 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 the truth in the whole you ask to these scientists in regular to religion sees what is the truth and they act in the same manner as magician you know because they work in secret compounds we secretly effects they say that you cannot publish that however they say they have the truth. if you spend. huge amount of money doing a study a study on something there's

a lot of confidential information in there that you don't want. another company to copy paste of course not i mean you might have spent years all over sources so people time a lot of time and lot of money on doing this research. what i've said does it underlies all of that or publish the results so it will publish it will come out with a statement at the end. and it will publish the results but it won't publish all the details of what a lot of people want to see because there are a lot of people. relativize all of because it's not actually a lot of people but some people. want to see everything that's fine i think now it's actually open published but you're talking about several thousands of pages i don't know who in his right mind would sit down and read through all of those pages i think is some parts can be blacked out but i would insist that that's to do with privacy so the relationship between our companies and research institutes 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 the 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 had no relationship whatsoever with industry ever so if you're a scientist in europe. having any kind of dealing with a company closes a number of avenues of work later so again we are really champions in creating difficulties for ourselves in europe but the rest of the world is to.

part of the problem and something else that needs to be changed is all the industry is funds many laboratories and funds studies through the universities which to a 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 drafts a paper and they ghostwrite it and they need to slap a name onto it they'll go to the university and say you know remember that we bought for you or remember that study we funded through university now we need your help and that's the problem there's this circular center just stick a fact between the universities needing the money and the companies being willing to provide it but it's sunday collecting. out of joint's work for monsanto and with me it's my partner. who. is right. next to me why.

thank you very much we move your courage to the 2nd panel which look. at transparency and use of scientific studies and yes that's one of life proceed in the united states and the 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. the

company's top selling chemical to say is not one of truth but one of deceit it's sort of a treasure trove a look inside a very big and powerful company that has been very secretive you know 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 lifesaving around it another way in which monsanto has manipulated regulators and the public by establishing networks of scientists around the world to support its agenda and its message about the safety of this chemical months and no end or the months and back life is a task force pays them they lobby regulators they are their papers sensually 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 monsanto has relied on.

in 2012 months and was very worried about you know toxicity questions arising from the say research when it engaged her when monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting what bill haden's wrote in that 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 then a full week reputations to maintain and that means that there is no point in those being responding to the influence of one stakeholder over another because those reputations would be destroyed i can say absolutely and. if the goalie

categorically this paper was ghost written we all imports our own sections to the paper there was no input involvement or influence of the review on months and thinking well it seems apparent that monsanto actually fears real independent authentic science monsanto said itself it feared the i.r. preview when it found n n 2014 this is before sat down before the classification monsanto says it fears this it says internally that it knew it had vulnerability in epidemiology toxicology geno talks monsanto officials even predicted that glyphosate would warrant a possible or probable rating with respect to s. an echo. you know absence of process is defined as a peer review and i understand that and that's i don't have a problem with that peer review problem in this case is that's not 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 i think that the important . we have doing in the proper independent assessment. according to sources that we have enough so according to the regulation that focus on the use of the active substance and based on the. news we got to be in the independence from industry is clearing the legislation i would say these are the basic principles big company they're the ones to market something the e.u. must pay for the assessment so this studies have found out that the industry will go the current process is scientifically flawed it is time to have an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the way in which the science is reviewed there is a need for the regulatory agencies to really analyze the data. there is

a need to publicly release all of you know and 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 months into very well but it does not seem that it serves the public interest thank you. 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 i really did an independent analysis or whether they just took the position against. monsanto as 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 that 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 scientist should be banned from a panel or you know research has been funded somewhere by someone and many of the scientists that have a lot of them have now left the f c organization and their science panels because they have been accused of having worked with the industry but since when does that make a scientist honest 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 could cost a lot of money i was helped by industry i haven't spoken to that particular

industry now for many many yes it's been a long time since i was in college. but that doesn't mean i'm dishonest as a scientist. join me every thursday on the all excitement show and i'll be speaking to us of the world of politics or business i'm show business i'll see you that. christmas eve special while we await santa claus that i wait for because the teacher is here now and it's glorious.

no one. will. be sure. unit 731 was a unique organization in the history of the world what they were trying to do was to simply do nothing short and build the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program that the world had ever known. the real you know. where the said israel should go. are going to judge enough to. kill it's going to suddenly look at the russia of putting. on more modern. you know modern others and new non-thermal more not up on their own i've got the muscle. i'm going to load up i think up another thought kind of wish

to know about the one you i know you did i'm. no more or less than a. jew no it's an adequate amount of them and all the belkin you. want basketball to go out oh i want that on this of over my and you know i. said mom gets in and out of the year you will not under the law that they give us to. know your of dance to be in the region where influence is very high and those are regions group of europe for for regulation.

and that's why it's so important that europe keeps a regulation which is scientific which is that they're based in which as much as possible. decides. it's being influenced 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 scientific process of risk assessment but then this evidence is given on another stage on the policy level where our 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 believe they question the validity of the process so

basically if so comes with an opinion let's say and they only continue its insecticides. politicians love if so they wonder food if so you are protecting the bees you're doing the right thing really good work down there so we all applaud to you and if the same process with the same people with the same scrutiny comes with a conclusion let's say. people say i'm sorry i don't like this if so should not say that it is relatively safe so if so must be corrupt i find this very bizarre you know regulations is independent of corporate influence and. everything is tests. actually test it. with a lot of money and. are looking at it independently. i don't

know where these people have been living. even in some of the mainstream if you do find reports that clearly explain that this is not happening we are seen corporate kept not only in the sciences sciences this is one of the fields we see corporate capture in every walk of life. i'd like to say it seems to be very highly charged not because of the safety of classes but because of g.m. because of monsanto because of international trade maybe even because of inequality with global trade. and your system must be from off to the states it's

very true for such a good in that oprah. be obnoxious from the heart you're from take. your extreme. searchin for mr van impe you for science for both good and. for love. but of course if the scientists 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 gas to make sure they're safe all do we want to make sure there's no conflict of interest what is the objective is that the safety of the product is that the conflict of interests of the of the scientist i think we need to be a bit more. honest and trustworthy without falling into the mistakes and so that's not something that we're looking for. the experts we

use are as independent as possible but i think also here it's not black or white it's not c. or one that's not the binary approach we have to find the right balance between the best expertise which means people that have done research that people that are with both their feet in the scientific endeavor and on the other hand to make sure that no conflict of interest. and if i may say also i think europe needs to make a decision whether. we know i think that's the. yes i thought leads to far. out of what i've seen this time nothing on this from which the mice when they don't suffer the impulse to cut off each other there then in one last 101 telephone

anything honest i thought of the billions and they left on my mission is what i am plump and think is that i 100 buy in from here in the last are going to be like that i live in nothingness when enough like on t.v. i better not going to hump a complement to say less but if we like a machine up in it but i'm into opium in a country. like auntie got the best from the kind of a hunk in the north is that i list but if we. do not come to that. of the mother. so its progression a principle and by scientific n.e.t.'s i think. a big issue for european economy in general because it reduces. the willingness.

there is a risk even. when you pressure saying. this is a risk. this is a benefit i'm i willing to take this risk yes or no and the regulation today. gives as an answer. if you look at the corner of 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 riding no safety belt in the house no one had no air by going on new a.b.s. and and yet 0 current. there was not a murder. the car was like this and it was a very safe car for the time and i'm not saying that because he says over 150. you know where fantasy but buys in there were very good night and then we discover that there are some side effects and then the regulation evolves in regulation becomes

more demanding and especially sides and always drawn from the company and that's normal that's normal. of any industry the power of innovation doesn't come from the big companies the big companies are too big to be innovative anymore they just want to preserve their privileges but they're not innovating anymore look at look at the g.m. and the pesticides we're dealing with g.m. plants that were developed 30 years ago nothing is changed it's another side resistance since the beginning it's all chemicals or something of a sudden. the innovation is that we now have in addition to round up ready and round resistant plants we have to cumber resistant plants and to for the resistant plants so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that's innovation. has to get it's just has to get the. benefits versus risk right what

is a risk you're willing to accept on the environment even if it's very small in order to have a safe and affordable food supply. to me the defining battle in the future will also be around our aquifer system if we manage to get our in my view dysfunctional agra food system. on a sound environmental economic social and economic basis. then we solved everything else will come from. even climate change and these things health issues and arbitrary shoes social issues they are collateral they're all part of the of this whole thing that is connected and the connect the connecting the centerpiece is this food. and how you produce it.

because we see. the world as it is. we are in fact and the border edge of the river lucian. because human kind is able to do it but home 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 harby he said this is a canary brief affair so i'm just a little bird in the system doing my job as much as i.

know for the yeah you want to our own thing we need to as. she goes well 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 when are going to there are lots of other technologies 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. a a.

lead. the air. to.

heal. russian state television some demonstrators right now the propaganda machine. the leg. length of. the leg the length. i'm sure. the lawyers.

the leg they sold goes. to the leg the the. legs a lot of questions what does it mean to be a conservative is conservative and he change with means to be conservative the issue in mind. for conservatives.

seem wrong. to me lol to say power. as a whole and in. the trailer. find themselves worlds apart of. common ground. l. look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. i robot must obey the orders given by human beings except when it conflicts with the 1st law. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence and the point is to create trust here. on theories saying with artificial intelligence will some of the.

most protect its own existence. as his time in office draws to a close veto is the us defense brining it constitutional. us military contractors who were jailed for that involvement in the massacre of iraqi civilians in 2007 all given presidential pardons the one from. which excludes prominent muslims. from the french government backs a controversial bill on so-called green cost for allowing travel to be allowed people vaccinated against kobe critics though say the move will turn everyone else into a 2nd class citizen.