tv Documentary RT December 27, 2020 9:30am-10:01am EST
the applicants 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 innovations. that is that companies have to submit studies to the european commission they do the studies themselves. they have to ship made it to the european commission and to f. stop 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 system the communication that john sees in the regular to reaction
sees 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 you know 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 with secret effects they say that you cannot publish that however they say they have the truth.
if you spend a 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 a lot of money on doing this research. what i've said does it all of that a 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 for it for a relative eyes 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 has 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 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 this circular center just pick 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 eric lasker. who. is right.
next to me why. the. thank you very much we move your colleagues to the 2nd panel which look. at transparency and use of scientific studies and yes this month of life proceed in the united states and the hopefully will provide insight into the so-called most on top beepers 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 for. suing 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 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 life the same around it another way in which my center 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 on end or the months in a back life is a task force pays them they lobby regulators they author 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 is relied
on. in 2012 months and was very worried about you know toxicity questions arising from life is a research when it engaged kirkland monsanto needed someone to help counter these concerns that were persisting belhaven wrote in the email i think i was just naive and it clearly did not leave any policy decision we all have decades of experience in the industry and then a full week. and that means that there is no point in those being. bonding 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 not ghost written we all imports our own sections to the paper there was no import 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 set 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 f.'s in 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 sessions and based on the. news we got to be in the independence from industry is clear in the legislation i would say these are the basic principles big kompany the ones to market something the e.u. 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. scientists to evaluate the way in which the science is reviewed
there is a need for the regulatory agencies to really analyze the data and there is a need to publicly release all of you know 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy going from day to let it be an arms race is on often very dramatic developments only really i'm going to resist i don't see that strategy will be successful very critical time
to sit down and talk. she should relate to those who did just that and japanese and i. don't mind it just by committees and on that. i mean because of the my space you know along today in that country now if you establish that the map got paid off and you . have the economy to have more than a last step to set. the muscle to get an up close look at any minute and so i'm going to call them back. almost around to. look at this the. moment. look at what's called the minimum point of which tomato plant going to come up thinking i come up each time she was hoping to go missing up it's going to go
and that's why it's so important that europe keeps the regulation which is scientific which is the debate in which as much as possible. decides. to be. influence 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 belief they question the validity of the process so basically if succumbs with an opinion let's continue it's insecticides. politicians love if so. wonderful to have so you are protecting the b.s. you are 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 young. 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 test. actually test it. with a lot of money and. 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 in sciences is this one of the fields we see corporate capture in. every walk of life. i'd like to see 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 you for. your system must be some of the seats very few for such a book about it in the world for. be obnoxious from parts of pick. to teach extra. and for this to get into for science for both good and. beloved. but of course if the science has 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 guest 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 a 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 either. 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 the 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 or stop you. yes i thought leads to follow.
on on the one thing this time nothing on this from which the mice when they don't have the impulse to cut off the other there than in one last 101 telephone anything honest i totaled in the billions left on my mission is what i have long and that is that i 100 buy in from here in the last are going to you know when to let that i live in nothingness when enough luck and the other question of going to hump or to implement to sell us but if we like a machine open it but i'm into. mcentee got the best from the can of a 100 in the home here is that i list but if we. do now that you've gotten that of the mother. so it's precautionary principle is 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 driving no safety belt and i was no i had no air by i did not know a.b.s. and and yet the a car maker was not murder. the car was like this. it was a very safe car for the time and i'm not saying that she says of 950. you know
where fantasy but buys in there were very good pesticides 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 has changed it's another side resistance since the beginning it's all chemicals or something of asian. innovation is that we now have in addition to round up ready and round resistant plants we have to cumber resistant plants and 2 for dinner is the plants so we're getting an even more cocked toxic cocktail that's innovation.
has to get out 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 and very mental economic social and economic basis. then we solve everything else will come from. even climate change and these things health issues and arbitrary shoes social issues they're collateral they're all part
of the of this whole thing that is connected and the connect the connecting the center piece is 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 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 hobby he said this is a colibri affair so i'm just
a little bird in the system doing my job as much as i turn. for the yeah you want to watch on thing going into athens. 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 open there are lots of other technologies is not just about g.m.o. there are lots of other technologies coming out and the companies are committed to invest in europe as well despite it being so. uncomfortable is a euphemism to work here. this is a. leg
. chemistry has also given us fulfillment in many ways by caring teen and abundant food supply if we look at our world today there are still famines but there are political famines are caused by political problems are not caused by an inability to grow food and if we look at infectious diseases if you were in the middle of a pandemic now with a pandemic is killing less than one percent of the people that are in facts and in past times pandemics could kill 30 to 70 percent of the people that were infected so chemistry has given us much improved quality of life in many ways and then we have to ask well with these unintended consequences that are causing species go
extinct that are causing environmental injustices how can we make things better because certainly we can handle those things better than we have. no one said no not. really should the. united 731 was a unique organization in the history of the world what they were trying to do was to simply do nothing short build the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program that the world had ever known. the real you know. with it so that gives you all should go to. go to.
sunday look at the ratio. you. can no modern publish it. you know the more more not on there are moments when you know. i'm going to know i've got the number 4 kind of wish to know about to whom you don't know who did him. no more or less than one. of them other. hours that 1st of all to go are full of what the us. should mind you are now. and more. and more that they keep us going to. join me every 1st week on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to guest of
the world of politics sports business i'm show business i'll see that. in the source a shape the way karen r.t.d. is a pal of hers of russia sputnik feedbacks and sign an official memorandum of cooperation with astra zeneca i hope that combining that vaccines will improve the efficacy i knew more contagious strain has been detected in england causing panic worldwide with more than 40 countries banning arrivals from the u.k. and clemency for killers but known for whistleblowers dozens of pardons from donald trump explained he spilled the beans on american war crimes putting cleek mystery's found guilty of the mass murder of civilians in iraq. there is no justification iraqi blood has become her miscible.
Uploaded by TV Archive on