Our Daily Poison

Description
Reviews
Citation
Cataloging
Transcript

If you are not affiliated with a college or university, and are interested in watching this film, please register as an individual and login to rent this film. Already registered? Login to rent this film.

According to the World Health Organization, the incidence of cancer has doubled over the last thirty years (after allowing for the population aging factor). Over this period, the increase in leukemia and brain tumors in children has been around 2% per year. The WHO has observed a similar trend for neurological diseases (Parkinson's and Alzheimer's) and autoimmune disorders, and for reproduction dysfunctions. What explanations can be found for this worrying epidemic, which is hitting the 'developed' countries particularly hard?

Haunted by that question, director Marie-Monique Robin launches an in-depth investigation into everyday products and the system charged with regulating them. Robin digs through the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) archives, manages to talk her way into secret meetings, and meets with regulators and respected renegade researchers throughout North American and Europe.

The result is OUR DAILY POISON-a shocking documentary film that reveals a broken safety system concerned more with protecting trade secrets than human health. (In one key moment, a member of the UN agency responsible for setting acceptable daily limits of poisonous chemicals admits that the numbers are 'theoretical' and have 'nothing to do with the real world.') The film shows that the main cause of the epidemic is environmental: it is the result of the 100,000 chemical molecules that have invaded our environment, and primarily our food, since the end of the Second World War.

The film is divided into three distinct, but interrelated sections, making it ideal for classroom use. In the first, Robin meets farmers suffering horrific health problems-such as leukemia, Parkinson's, and brain lesions-linked to pesticide poisoning, and looks into the effects those same pesticides have on people eating fruits and vegetables.

Robin then moves on to the broken regulatory regime, using the artificial sweetener Aspartame as a case study. It is a cautionary tale about the revolving door between government and industry, and the influence of money on research findings. Finally, OUR DAILY POISON reveals the inadequacies of testing individual compounds in a world where everyone carries around a cocktail of synthetic chemicals absorbed from food and the environment-many of them mimicking the body's own hormones.

OUR DAILY POISON is a smart, well-researched and thoroughly compelling documentary that will reshape the way you think about everyday products and the systems that are supposed to ensure their safety.

***-1/2 'OUR DAILY POISON makes a strong case that corporate interests have trumped truth at the expense of consumers' health, offering a sobering expose of industries intent on profit over safely-and governments asleep at the helm. Highly Recommended.' -Video Librarian

'Highly Recommended. Robin provides information...through a superb blend of archival footage and documentation, as well as personal and expert interviews. ...It offers a fascinating and somewhat horrifying look at the production of food across the globe as it makes its way from farmers' fields to our plates. The cinematography and sound quality are excellent. OUR DAILY POISON would make a great addition to any library, public, academic, or classroom collection.' -Educational Media Reviews Online

'A masterly and implacable investigation.' -Madame Figaro Magazine

'Can be watched like a thriller.' -Terra Eco

'The elements brought forth by Marie Monique Robin-in particular on the lack of independent research centers-deserve a real debate.' -Challenges

'A shocking documentary...complete and well researched.' -Reforme

'A meticulous investigation.' -VSD

'The battery of evidence is chilling.' -Marianne Magazine

'The film serves as a good model of scientific methodology, the interpretation of results based on personal perspective, and the role of peer review and independent studies in science. Media and government play a prominent role as well. And if government testing sounds kind of boring, you haven't seen the film yet.' -National Science Teachers Association Recommends

'Sobering stuff' -Ben Sachs, Chicago Reader

Smart, well-researched and thoroughly compelling' -Cook and Taste

'Highlights the need for a new paradigm in the assessment of chemical risks' -Health and Environment Alliance

'Uncovers the hidden dangers in our daily food' -Slow Food Europe

'If we are what we eat, we may be in trouble' -The Science Teacher

'A shocking account of the dangerous chemical compounds that have infiltrated our food chain' -UTNE Reader

Citation

Select a citation style:

Main credits

Robin, Marie-Monique (filmmaker)
Barreyre, Christophe (film producer)
Morand-Frenette, Isabelle (film producer)

Other credits

Camera, Guillaume Martin, Olivier Chambon, Laurent Cassoulet; editor, Françoise Boulègue; original music, Jean-Louis Valéro.

MARC Record See Worldcat record

Keywords

DVD; Film; Video; Documentary; Chemicals; Synthetic Chemicals; Monsanto; Pesticides; Aspartame; Plastics; Plastic; Plastics Synthetic; Synthetics; Poison; Autoimmune; Immune; World Health Organization; WHO; FDA; EFSA; Leukaemia; Cancer; Environment; Environmental; Pharmaceutical; Pharmaceuticals; Pharmaceutical Industry; Hormones; Hormone; Parkinsons; Parkinsons Disease; Alzheimers; Alzheimers Disease; "Our Daily Poison"; Icarus Films

WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.290 align:middle line:90%

00:00:03.290 --> 00:00:07.402 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:00:07.402 --> 00:01:02.450 align:middle line:90%

00:01:02.450 --> 00:01:05.029 align:middle line:84%
I was four when
this film was made,

00:01:05.029 --> 00:01:07.070 align:middle line:84%
and I could have been one
of the children sitting

00:01:07.070 --> 00:01:07.778 align:middle line:90%
around the table.

00:01:07.778 --> 00:01:11.870 align:middle line:90%

00:01:11.870 --> 00:01:15.390 align:middle line:84%
Half a century later, I
picked up the investigation,

00:01:15.390 --> 00:01:17.600 align:middle line:90%
which had remained unfinished--

00:01:17.600 --> 00:01:19.490 align:middle line:90%
and for a very good reason.

00:01:19.490 --> 00:01:22.760 align:middle line:84%
At the time, it was too early
to measure the long term

00:01:22.760 --> 00:01:25.340 align:middle line:84%
effects of the chemicals that
were being used in the food

00:01:25.340 --> 00:01:29.900 align:middle line:84%
chain from the farmer\'s field
to the consumer\'s plate,

00:01:29.900 --> 00:01:34.220 align:middle line:84%
and yet they\'re everywhere--
on fruit and vegetables

00:01:34.220 --> 00:01:39.140 align:middle line:84%
as pesticide residue at the
grocers, in ready meals,

00:01:39.140 --> 00:01:44.200 align:middle line:84%
as food additives, in packaging
and plastic containers.

00:01:44.200 --> 00:01:46.250 align:middle line:90%
And how are they regulated?

00:01:46.250 --> 00:01:48.350 align:middle line:90%
Are they properly tested?

00:01:48.350 --> 00:01:50.510 align:middle line:84%
Is there a link
between these chemicals

00:01:50.510 --> 00:01:53.300 align:middle line:84%
and certain chronic
diseases like cancer,

00:01:53.300 --> 00:01:57.500 align:middle line:84%
neurodegenerative illnesses,
or problems of sterility?

00:01:57.500 --> 00:02:00.440 align:middle line:84%
To answer these questions I
traveled around the world,

00:02:00.440 --> 00:02:03.320 align:middle line:84%
patiently putting together
the pieces of the puzzle,

00:02:03.320 --> 00:02:05.075 align:middle line:90%
because knowledge is power.

00:02:05.075 --> 00:02:29.250 align:middle line:90%

00:02:29.250 --> 00:02:31.280 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:02:31.280 --> 00:03:16.210 align:middle line:90%

00:03:16.210 --> 00:03:20.090 align:middle line:84%
In corn and soybeans, Lasso by
itself or a recommended Lasso

00:03:20.090 --> 00:03:22.900 align:middle line:84%
tank mix can control
many problems weds.

00:03:22.900 --> 00:03:27.040 align:middle line:90%
Lasso-- herbicide by Monsanto.

00:03:27.040 --> 00:03:28.960 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:03:28.960 --> 00:03:51.270 align:middle line:90%

00:03:51.270 --> 00:03:54.380 align:middle line:84%
My answer is chemical
weed control.

00:03:54.380 --> 00:03:56.304 align:middle line:90%
Used properly, nobody gets hurt.

00:03:56.304 --> 00:03:59.268 align:middle line:90%

00:03:59.268 --> 00:04:00.750 align:middle line:90%
Only the weeds.

00:04:00.750 --> 00:04:04.210 align:middle line:90%

00:04:04.210 --> 00:04:08.950 align:middle line:84%
In January, 2010, and for the
first time ever in the world,

00:04:08.950 --> 00:04:11.920 align:middle line:84%
some 30-odd sick farmers
met at the behest

00:04:11.920 --> 00:04:13.750 align:middle line:84%
of the movement for
the respect and rights

00:04:13.750 --> 00:04:17.800 align:middle line:84%
of future generations, an
environmental organization

00:04:17.800 --> 00:04:21.499 align:middle line:84%
campaigning against the
dangers of pesticides.

00:04:21.499 --> 00:04:25.864 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:04:25.864 --> 00:04:38.590 align:middle line:90%

00:04:38.590 --> 00:04:40.910 align:middle line:90%
I was there for two reasons.

00:04:40.910 --> 00:04:43.660 align:middle line:84%
First, as a journalist,
because the food chain

00:04:43.660 --> 00:04:46.990 align:middle line:84%
starts in the farmer\'s
fields, and secondly,

00:04:46.990 --> 00:04:51.040 align:middle line:84%
because I grew up on a farm
less than 100 miles from there.

00:04:51.040 --> 00:04:53.710 align:middle line:84%
Like all these men
and women, my parents

00:04:53.710 --> 00:04:55.150 align:middle line:84%
took part in the
Green Revolution

00:04:55.150 --> 00:04:58.540 align:middle line:84%
that deeply changed farming
practices in the years

00:04:58.540 --> 00:05:00.080 align:middle line:90%
following the Second World War.

00:05:00.080 --> 00:05:04.008 align:middle line:90%

00:05:04.008 --> 00:05:06.840 align:middle line:84%
The model came
from the USA, which

00:05:06.840 --> 00:05:10.710 align:middle line:84%
exported farming machinery
and pesticides massively

00:05:10.710 --> 00:05:12.540 align:middle line:84%
thanks to the
Marshall Plan, which

00:05:12.540 --> 00:05:15.150 align:middle line:84%
was supposed to support the
reconstruction of Europe

00:05:15.150 --> 00:05:18.420 align:middle line:84%
in ruins, and
everyone believed it.

00:05:18.420 --> 00:05:20.670 align:middle line:90%
No more shortages or famines.

00:05:20.670 --> 00:05:23.670 align:middle line:84%
Industrial farming was
going to feed the world.

00:05:23.670 --> 00:05:27.390 align:middle line:84%
Man, in the past two decades,
has made tremendous strides

00:05:27.390 --> 00:05:29.490 align:middle line:84%
in the use of
chemistry as a tool

00:05:29.490 --> 00:05:32.370 align:middle line:84%
to produce abundance,
the abundance which

00:05:32.370 --> 00:05:35.470 align:middle line:84%
has given us the highest living
standard the world has ever

00:05:35.470 --> 00:05:35.970 align:middle line:90%
known.

00:05:35.970 --> 00:05:40.480 align:middle line:90%

00:05:40.480 --> 00:05:44.600 align:middle line:84%
In this farming model, chemistry
is the answer to everything.

00:05:44.600 --> 00:05:48.500 align:middle line:84%
It supplies insecticides to
destroy insects, weed killers

00:05:48.500 --> 00:05:51.260 align:middle line:84%
to wipe out weeds,
and fungicides

00:05:51.260 --> 00:05:52.760 align:middle line:90%
to annihilate mushrooms.

00:05:52.760 --> 00:06:00.456 align:middle line:90%

00:06:00.456 --> 00:06:04.060 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:06:04.060 --> 00:07:08.620 align:middle line:90%

00:07:08.620 --> 00:07:12.280 align:middle line:84%
But always remember,
pesticides are poison,

00:07:12.280 --> 00:07:14.830 align:middle line:84%
and their safe use
depends on you.

00:07:14.830 --> 00:07:16.710 align:middle line:90%
Use pesticide safely.

00:07:16.710 --> 00:07:20.840 align:middle line:90%

00:07:20.840 --> 00:07:23.180 align:middle line:90%
Pesticides are poisons.

00:07:23.180 --> 00:07:25.210 align:middle line:90%
That\'s clear, at least.

00:07:25.210 --> 00:07:29.720 align:middle line:84%
And when taken in large
doses, they cause poisoning.

00:07:29.720 --> 00:07:31.670 align:middle line:84%
This danger has
never been denied

00:07:31.670 --> 00:07:34.970 align:middle line:84%
by the promoters of
chemical agriculture, who,

00:07:34.970 --> 00:07:38.360 align:middle line:84%
50 years ago, readily
filmed victims of poisoning

00:07:38.360 --> 00:07:40.729 align:middle line:84%
in order to carry out
therapeutic research

00:07:40.729 --> 00:07:41.645 align:middle line:90%
and preventive action.

00:07:41.645 --> 00:07:58.662 align:middle line:90%

00:07:58.662 --> 00:08:00.900 align:middle line:84%
According to the World
Health Organization,

00:08:00.900 --> 00:08:02.670 align:middle line:84%
between one and
three million people

00:08:02.670 --> 00:08:04.780 align:middle line:84%
are victims of
pesticide poisoning,

00:08:04.780 --> 00:08:11.290 align:middle line:84%
and an estimated
200,000 die from it.

00:08:11.290 --> 00:08:13.870 align:middle line:84%
France is the first
consumer of pesticides

00:08:13.870 --> 00:08:16.900 align:middle line:84%
in Europe with an annual
consumption of 180

00:08:16.900 --> 00:08:18.640 align:middle line:90%
million pounds.

00:08:18.640 --> 00:08:23.110 align:middle line:84%
Since 1997, the French farmers
medical insurance fund has

00:08:23.110 --> 00:08:25.720 align:middle line:84%
carried out a monitoring
program of poisoning called

00:08:25.720 --> 00:08:27.720 align:middle line:90%
Phyt\'attitude.

00:08:27.720 --> 00:08:32.039 align:middle line:84%
\"Phyt,\" as in phytosanitary
products, the official term

00:08:32.039 --> 00:08:34.140 align:middle line:84%
used by authorities
in the industry

00:08:34.140 --> 00:08:36.330 align:middle line:90%
to designate pesticides.

00:08:36.330 --> 00:08:42.650 align:middle line:84%
In 2009, the fund registered
271 poisoning cases.

00:08:42.650 --> 00:08:44.530 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:08:44.530 --> 00:10:22.080 align:middle line:90%

00:10:22.080 --> 00:10:25.050 align:middle line:84%
Dr. Dupupet\'s response
was so arduous,

00:10:25.050 --> 00:10:27.810 align:middle line:84%
because, until very
recently, the long term

00:10:27.810 --> 00:10:32.700 align:middle line:84%
impact of pesticides on
users was a taboo topic.

00:10:32.700 --> 00:10:35.910 align:middle line:84%
Preventive messages only
focused on poisoning,

00:10:35.910 --> 00:10:39.330 align:middle line:84%
but never on chronic exposure
to low repeated doses

00:10:39.330 --> 00:10:43.040 align:middle line:90%
over a long period of time.

00:10:43.040 --> 00:10:45.650 align:middle line:84%
A growing number of
epidemiological studies

00:10:45.650 --> 00:10:48.725 align:middle line:84%
have since forced the fund
to break the wall of silence.

00:10:48.725 --> 00:10:55.280 align:middle line:90%

00:10:55.280 --> 00:10:58.030 align:middle line:84%
Take Parkinson\'s
disease, for example.

00:10:58.030 --> 00:11:00.470 align:middle line:84%
A dozen epidemiological
studies have

00:11:00.470 --> 00:11:03.080 align:middle line:84%
shown that there is a link
between chronic exposure

00:11:03.080 --> 00:11:08.700 align:middle line:84%
to pesticides and this
neurodegenerative pathology.

00:11:08.700 --> 00:11:11.550 align:middle line:84%
I\'ve chosen just two
of these studies--

00:11:11.550 --> 00:11:15.000 align:middle line:84%
one carried out by the French
National Medical Research

00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:18.270 align:middle line:84%
Institute in collaboration
with occupational doctors

00:11:18.270 --> 00:11:21.960 align:middle line:84%
from the fund, and another
one by the Parkinson Institute

00:11:21.960 --> 00:11:23.670 align:middle line:90%
of California.

00:11:23.670 --> 00:11:27.150 align:middle line:84%
Each study was carried out
on at least 500 patients

00:11:27.150 --> 00:11:30.600 align:middle line:84%
and compared to an equivalent
number of healthy patients

00:11:30.600 --> 00:11:33.450 align:middle line:90%
called the control group.

00:11:33.450 --> 00:11:39.000 align:middle line:84%
Our major finding was that
two, three chemicals, really,

00:11:39.000 --> 00:11:43.570 align:middle line:84%
were strongly associated with
Parkinson\'s disease risk.

00:11:43.570 --> 00:11:50.100 align:middle line:84%
The first of these was
2,4-D, which is an herbicide.

00:11:50.100 --> 00:11:55.980 align:middle line:84%
The second of these was
Paraquat, another herbicide.

00:11:55.980 --> 00:11:58.440 align:middle line:84%
And then the last
was Permethrin,

00:11:58.440 --> 00:12:00.636 align:middle line:90%
which is an insecticide.

00:12:00.636 --> 00:12:03.485 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:12:03.485 --> 00:12:14.220 align:middle line:90%

00:12:14.220 --> 00:12:18.240 align:middle line:84%
The risk was increased about
two and a half or three times.

00:12:18.240 --> 00:12:20.730 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:12:20.730 --> 00:12:45.080 align:middle line:90%

00:12:45.080 --> 00:12:48.450 align:middle line:84%
To date, about 30 farmers have
been officially recognized

00:12:48.450 --> 00:12:51.060 align:middle line:84%
as suffering from an
occupational disease,

00:12:51.060 --> 00:12:53.470 align:middle line:84%
and 10 of those
from Parkinson\'s.

00:12:53.470 --> 00:12:56.730 align:middle line:84%
For the sick farmers in
Ruffec, it isn\'t enough,

00:12:56.730 --> 00:12:58.620 align:middle line:84%
because the farmers
health insurance fund

00:12:58.620 --> 00:13:00.960 align:middle line:90%
doesn\'t give the status easily.

00:13:00.960 --> 00:13:03.090 align:middle line:84%
Nevertheless, the change
in the fund\'s attitude

00:13:03.090 --> 00:13:04.655 align:middle line:90%
is unique in the world.

00:13:04.655 --> 00:13:07.910 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:13:07.910 --> 00:16:26.860 align:middle line:90%

00:16:26.860 --> 00:16:29.950 align:middle line:84%
And what do the pesticide
manufacturers think of that?

00:16:29.950 --> 00:16:33.220 align:middle line:84%
In France, they are
represented by the UIPP, Union

00:16:33.220 --> 00:16:35.440 align:middle line:84%
of Industries for the
Protection of Plants,

00:16:35.440 --> 00:16:39.610 align:middle line:84%
which has 19 members, including
the six giants in the sector--

00:16:39.610 --> 00:16:44.980 align:middle line:84%
Basf, Bayer, Dow, Dupont,
Monsanto, and Syngenta.

00:16:44.980 --> 00:16:49.190 align:middle line:90%

00:16:49.190 --> 00:16:52.480 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:16:52.480 --> 00:17:02.840 align:middle line:90%

00:17:02.840 --> 00:17:04.849 align:middle line:90%
Who can we believe?

00:17:04.849 --> 00:17:09.230 align:middle line:84%
On the one hand, the farmers
fund grants farmers with cancer

00:17:09.230 --> 00:17:12.460 align:middle line:84%
the status of occupational
disease victim,

00:17:12.460 --> 00:17:15.140 align:middle line:84%
and on the other, an
industry representative

00:17:15.140 --> 00:17:18.410 align:middle line:84%
claims that there isn\'t any
proven link between pesticides

00:17:18.410 --> 00:17:21.060 align:middle line:90%
and cancer.

00:17:21.060 --> 00:17:24.390 align:middle line:84%
To sort this out, I
contacted the IARC,

00:17:24.390 --> 00:17:27.089 align:middle line:84%
the International Agency
on Cancer Research,

00:17:27.089 --> 00:17:29.670 align:middle line:90%
which is part of the WHO.

00:17:29.670 --> 00:17:33.510 align:middle line:84%
In 2007, the IARC
cosigned a report

00:17:33.510 --> 00:17:37.020 align:middle line:84%
published by French science
and medicine academies called

00:17:37.020 --> 00:17:39.840 align:middle line:84%
\"The Causes of
Cancer in France,\"

00:17:39.840 --> 00:17:43.260 align:middle line:84%
which affirmed that
only 0.5% of cancers

00:17:43.260 --> 00:17:46.250 align:middle line:90%
were due to chemical pollution.

00:17:46.250 --> 00:17:48.110 align:middle line:84%
In its table of
cancers, which could

00:17:48.110 --> 00:17:50.900 align:middle line:84%
be related to
occupational exposure,

00:17:50.900 --> 00:17:54.180 align:middle line:84%
pesticides were
completely ignored.

00:17:54.180 --> 00:17:57.090 align:middle line:84%
It concluded that there
was no strong evidence

00:17:57.090 --> 00:17:59.795 align:middle line:84%
of the assumed link between
pesticides and cancer.

00:17:59.795 --> 00:18:03.180 align:middle line:90%

00:18:03.180 --> 00:18:07.530 align:middle line:84%
In the field of cancer, the IARC
is the international reference.

00:18:07.530 --> 00:18:09.690 align:middle line:90%
It establishes the monographs--

00:18:09.690 --> 00:18:12.570 align:middle line:84%
that is, the classification
of chemicals according

00:18:12.570 --> 00:18:16.050 align:middle line:84%
to their carcinogenic
potential, an essential tool

00:18:16.050 --> 00:18:18.540 align:middle line:90%
to regulate substances.

00:18:18.540 --> 00:18:22.650 align:middle line:84%
To do that, experts examine
the scientific publications

00:18:22.650 --> 00:18:23.850 align:middle line:90%
on the product--

00:18:23.850 --> 00:18:25.590 align:middle line:84%
that is, all the
studies published

00:18:25.590 --> 00:18:29.430 align:middle line:90%
in peer reviewed magazines.

00:18:29.430 --> 00:18:32.670 align:middle line:84%
The substances are classified
in three categories.

00:18:32.670 --> 00:18:37.710 align:middle line:84%
Group one-- carcinogenic to
humans, an exceptional category

00:18:37.710 --> 00:18:41.490 align:middle line:84%
because for a molecule to be
declared carcinogenic to humans

00:18:41.490 --> 00:18:44.280 align:middle line:84%
you must have
epidemiological data, which

00:18:44.280 --> 00:18:46.580 align:middle line:90%
is very difficult to obtain.

00:18:46.580 --> 00:18:50.530 align:middle line:84%
Benzene and asbestos
are in this category.

00:18:50.530 --> 00:18:55.290 align:middle line:84%
Then there\'s group 2A, probably
carcinogenic to humans.

00:18:55.290 --> 00:18:59.320 align:middle line:84%
And group 2B, possibly
carcinogenic, which

00:18:59.320 --> 00:19:01.810 align:middle line:84%
are typical of products
for which there is more

00:19:01.810 --> 00:19:04.150 align:middle line:90%
or less animal experiment data.

00:19:04.150 --> 00:19:07.090 align:middle line:84%
Of the 80,000 chemicals which
have been commercialized

00:19:07.090 --> 00:19:10.770 align:middle line:84%
since the end of the
Second World War, only 900

00:19:10.770 --> 00:19:12.940 align:middle line:90%
have been tested by the IARC.

00:19:12.940 --> 00:19:17.420 align:middle line:84%
More than half of them belong
to group 3, unclassifiable.

00:19:17.420 --> 00:19:20.500 align:middle line:84%
Does the fact that a chemical
has not been classified by IARC

00:19:20.500 --> 00:19:22.630 align:middle line:90%
mean it\'s harmless?

00:19:22.630 --> 00:19:24.830 align:middle line:90%
No, it doesn\'t mean that at all.

00:19:24.830 --> 00:19:27.790 align:middle line:84%
For most cases, it means
it hasn\'t been tested.

00:19:27.790 --> 00:19:31.750 align:middle line:84%
Sometimes it has been tested,
but we haven\'t scheduled it yet

00:19:31.750 --> 00:19:33.940 align:middle line:90%
for an evaluation.

00:19:33.940 --> 00:19:36.460 align:middle line:84%
Most cases it just means we
haven\'t-- nobody has looked

00:19:36.460 --> 00:19:40.890 align:middle line:84%
at the cancer data or nobody has
studied it for carcinogenicity.

00:19:40.890 --> 00:19:44.500 align:middle line:84%
How many pesticides have
been reviewed by IARC?

00:19:44.500 --> 00:19:46.560 align:middle line:84%
Oh, I guess I don\'t
usually count them,

00:19:46.560 --> 00:19:49.549 align:middle line:84%
but I imagine maybe
20 or 30 pesticides

00:19:49.549 --> 00:19:51.590 align:middle line:84%
have been reviewed in the
history of the program.

00:19:51.590 --> 00:19:53.012 align:middle line:90%
That\'s nothing.

00:19:53.012 --> 00:19:55.470 align:middle line:84%
No, it\'s not very much compared
to the number of pesticides

00:19:55.470 --> 00:19:57.231 align:middle line:90%
that have been used.

00:19:57.231 --> 00:19:58.980 align:middle line:84%
It actually would be
very difficult for us

00:19:58.980 --> 00:20:02.220 align:middle line:84%
to do a credible
evaluation of pesticides

00:20:02.220 --> 00:20:05.490 align:middle line:84%
because most of the experimental
studies done of pesticides

00:20:05.490 --> 00:20:07.720 align:middle line:90%
are not in the public domain.

00:20:07.720 --> 00:20:10.440 align:middle line:84%
The companies that
manufacture the pesticides

00:20:10.440 --> 00:20:13.560 align:middle line:84%
are required to do testing
by national health agencies,

00:20:13.560 --> 00:20:17.250 align:middle line:84%
and they do that testing,
and they submit those tests

00:20:17.250 --> 00:20:20.130 align:middle line:84%
to the government agencies,
but they\'re not published.

00:20:20.130 --> 00:20:24.090 align:middle line:84%
And so we would have a difficult
time getting access to that.

00:20:24.090 --> 00:20:27.060 align:middle line:84%
How do you explain that most
of the studies carried out

00:20:27.060 --> 00:20:29.310 align:middle line:84%
by the pesticides
industry are not

00:20:29.310 --> 00:20:34.110 align:middle line:84%
published in peer reviewed
scientific magazines?

00:20:34.110 --> 00:20:37.680 align:middle line:84%
Possibly because it\'s not in
the interests to publish results

00:20:37.680 --> 00:20:40.960 align:middle line:84%
that might have some
suggestions of hazard,

00:20:40.960 --> 00:20:43.530 align:middle line:84%
but there\'s just no requirement
that these studies be

00:20:43.530 --> 00:20:45.690 align:middle line:90%
published in the public domain.

00:20:45.690 --> 00:20:51.660 align:middle line:84%
You know that in 2007 the French
National Academy of Medicine

00:20:51.660 --> 00:20:54.510 align:middle line:84%
and the National Academy of
Science published together

00:20:54.510 --> 00:20:58.635 align:middle line:84%
with IARC a report called \"The
Causes of Cancer in France.\"

00:20:58.635 --> 00:20:59.850 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:20:59.850 --> 00:21:04.660 align:middle line:84%
They say that none of the
pesticides presently used

00:21:04.660 --> 00:21:09.810 align:middle line:84%
are carcinogenic for
animals or humans.

00:21:09.810 --> 00:21:15.420 align:middle line:84%
Actually, I reviewed
some of your monographs

00:21:15.420 --> 00:21:17.400 align:middle line:84%
and found at least
two pesticides

00:21:17.400 --> 00:21:20.990 align:middle line:90%
in use classified as 2B.

00:21:20.990 --> 00:21:26.250 align:middle line:84%
You reviewed the dichlorvos
and chlorothalonil.

00:21:26.250 --> 00:21:28.310 align:middle line:84%
If they are
classified as 2B that

00:21:28.310 --> 00:21:31.040 align:middle line:84%
means that at least there
are animal studies that are

00:21:31.040 --> 00:21:33.500 align:middle line:90%
showing some carcinogenicity.

00:21:33.500 --> 00:21:34.550 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:21:34.550 --> 00:21:39.910 align:middle line:84%
Yes, if they\'re still used-- and
I\'m pretty sure that they are--

00:21:39.910 --> 00:21:42.420 align:middle line:84%
they are carcinogenic
in animals.

00:21:42.420 --> 00:21:47.030 align:middle line:84%
That means that the claim
here in this report is wrong.

00:21:47.030 --> 00:21:49.660 align:middle line:90%
Right.

00:21:49.660 --> 00:21:50.350 align:middle line:90%
I think it is.

00:21:50.350 --> 00:21:57.610 align:middle line:90%

00:21:57.610 --> 00:22:01.100 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:22:01.100 --> 00:22:21.380 align:middle line:90%

00:22:21.380 --> 00:22:24.890 align:middle line:84%
All the right questions
were asked 50 years ago.

00:22:24.890 --> 00:22:28.040 align:middle line:84%
If pesticides are so dangerous
that they can cause illnesses

00:22:28.040 --> 00:22:31.280 align:middle line:84%
in the people who use them,
what can be said for the residue

00:22:31.280 --> 00:22:33.740 align:middle line:84%
we find on treated
fruit and vegetables?

00:22:33.740 --> 00:22:35.960 align:middle line:84%
Can they make us,
the consumer, sick?

00:22:35.960 --> 00:22:41.170 align:middle line:90%

00:22:41.170 --> 00:22:44.140 align:middle line:84%
To answer this question
we have to understand

00:22:44.140 --> 00:22:47.320 align:middle line:84%
how the regulation
of chemicals works.

00:22:47.320 --> 00:22:49.390 align:middle line:84%
The existing system
was set up at the end

00:22:49.390 --> 00:22:52.480 align:middle line:84%
of the \'50s under the
leadership of the WHO

00:22:52.480 --> 00:22:55.210 align:middle line:84%
together with the
FAO, the UN\'s food

00:22:55.210 --> 00:22:58.830 align:middle line:90%
and agricultural organization.

00:22:58.830 --> 00:23:03.480 align:middle line:84%
Looking through the archives,
I found a French toxicologist

00:23:03.480 --> 00:23:06.990 align:middle line:84%
who played an important
role in establishing tools

00:23:06.990 --> 00:23:11.580 align:middle line:84%
to regulate the chemicals that
come in contact with our food.

00:23:11.580 --> 00:23:14.280 align:middle line:84%
His name is Rene Truhaut,
and he was interviewed

00:23:14.280 --> 00:23:17.932 align:middle line:90%
by my colleagues 50 years ago.

00:23:17.932 --> 00:23:20.860 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:23:20.860 --> 00:24:06.860 align:middle line:90%

00:24:06.860 --> 00:24:09.530 align:middle line:84%
Rene Truhaut is considered
to be the father

00:24:09.530 --> 00:24:14.000 align:middle line:84%
of the acceptable
daily intake, or ADI.

00:24:14.000 --> 00:24:17.030 align:middle line:84%
First conceived to
regulate food additives,

00:24:17.030 --> 00:24:19.040 align:middle line:84%
this essential
tool for toxicology

00:24:19.040 --> 00:24:22.040 align:middle line:84%
was then extended to
pesticide residue.

00:24:22.040 --> 00:24:25.550 align:middle line:84%
This is the definition
according to Rene Truhaut.

00:24:25.550 --> 00:24:29.030 align:middle line:84%
The acceptable daily
intake, ADI, for man

00:24:29.030 --> 00:24:30.830 align:middle line:84%
is the amount of
food additive that

00:24:30.830 --> 00:24:34.220 align:middle line:84%
can be taken daily in the
diet, even over a lifetime,

00:24:34.220 --> 00:24:35.030 align:middle line:90%
without risk.

00:24:35.030 --> 00:24:41.320 align:middle line:90%

00:24:41.320 --> 00:24:44.320 align:middle line:84%
Curiously, nobody
really knows how

00:24:44.320 --> 00:24:48.310 align:middle line:84%
the ADI was invented, whereas
it is supposed to protect us

00:24:48.310 --> 00:24:51.100 align:middle line:90%
from chemical hazards.

00:24:51.100 --> 00:24:54.550 align:middle line:84%
The only person I found
was Diane Benford,

00:24:54.550 --> 00:24:58.780 align:middle line:84%
a toxicologist working for the
British Food Standards Agency.

00:24:58.780 --> 00:25:01.090 align:middle line:84%
She is the author
of a document called

00:25:01.090 --> 00:25:06.340 align:middle line:84%
\"The Acceptable Daily Intake a
Tool for Ensuring Food Safety.\"

00:25:06.340 --> 00:25:09.760 align:middle line:84%
It was published by the ILSE,
an organization financed

00:25:09.760 --> 00:25:12.430 align:middle line:84%
by chemical and food
processing multinationals.

00:25:12.430 --> 00:25:15.930 align:middle line:90%

00:25:15.930 --> 00:25:18.660 align:middle line:84%
In its historical
part, Diane Benford

00:25:18.660 --> 00:25:22.830 align:middle line:84%
simply names Rene Truhaut,
and cites Paracelsus,

00:25:22.830 --> 00:25:26.070 align:middle line:84%
a 16th century Swiss doctor
who is considered to be

00:25:26.070 --> 00:25:28.290 align:middle line:90%
the founder of toxicology.

00:25:28.290 --> 00:25:30.180 align:middle line:90%
All substances are poisons.

00:25:30.180 --> 00:25:35.290 align:middle line:84%
The right dose differentiates
a poison and a remedy.

00:25:35.290 --> 00:25:40.420 align:middle line:84%
The basic concept underlying
ADI is a [INAUDIBLE] principle.

00:25:40.420 --> 00:25:41.960 align:middle line:90%
The dose makes a poison?

00:25:41.960 --> 00:25:42.460 align:middle line:90%
That\'s true?

00:25:42.460 --> 00:25:43.160 align:middle line:90%
That\'s right, yes.

00:25:43.160 --> 00:25:44.534 align:middle line:84%
Can you explain
me what it means?

00:25:44.534 --> 00:25:45.820 align:middle line:90%
Does makes the poison?

00:25:45.820 --> 00:25:48.280 align:middle line:84%
With increasing dose,
it becomes more likely

00:25:48.280 --> 00:25:51.700 align:middle line:84%
that you will have
harmful effects occurring.

00:25:51.700 --> 00:25:53.560 align:middle line:84%
In principle, with
absolutely anything,

00:25:53.560 --> 00:25:56.740 align:middle line:84%
even with things like
water and oxygen with which

00:25:56.740 --> 00:26:01.150 align:middle line:84%
we can\'t live without them, but
if you have too much of them,

00:26:01.150 --> 00:26:03.860 align:middle line:84%
then they can be
harmful to us, as well.

00:26:03.860 --> 00:26:07.150 align:middle line:84%
And as you go down to lower
levels, with most things

00:26:07.150 --> 00:26:09.610 align:middle line:84%
it becomes less likely
that they will have

00:26:09.610 --> 00:26:11.600 align:middle line:90%
any kind of adverse effect.

00:26:11.600 --> 00:26:14.689 align:middle line:84%
That\'s what you call
toxicologist-- a dose response.

00:26:14.689 --> 00:26:15.230 align:middle line:90%
Relationship.

00:26:15.230 --> 00:26:16.210 align:middle line:90%
Yes, that\'s right.

00:26:16.210 --> 00:26:17.080 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:26:17.080 --> 00:26:20.770 align:middle line:84%
The number of individuals
responding and also

00:26:20.770 --> 00:26:23.320 align:middle line:84%
the severity of
the response will

00:26:23.320 --> 00:26:26.850 align:middle line:90%
increase as the dose increases.

00:26:26.850 --> 00:26:29.330 align:middle line:84%
That means that
all this assessment

00:26:29.330 --> 00:26:33.290 align:middle line:84%
is based on the assumption
that a chemical substance is

00:26:33.290 --> 00:26:36.470 align:middle line:84%
supposed to be likely to
produce a harmful effect,

00:26:36.470 --> 00:26:38.960 align:middle line:84%
and we\'re just trying
to find a level where

00:26:38.960 --> 00:26:41.000 align:middle line:90%
we won\'t have any effect.

00:26:41.000 --> 00:26:41.610 align:middle line:90%
That\'s right.

00:26:41.610 --> 00:26:42.110 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:26:42.110 --> 00:26:42.609 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:26:42.609 --> 00:26:45.780 align:middle line:90%

00:26:45.780 --> 00:26:50.520 align:middle line:84%
As this demonstration shows, a
single drop tapped in the eye

00:26:50.520 --> 00:26:51.428 align:middle line:90%
can be fatal.

00:26:51.428 --> 00:27:03.640 align:middle line:90%

00:27:03.640 --> 00:27:08.050 align:middle line:84%
In concrete terms, the ADI is
calculated from studies carried

00:27:08.050 --> 00:27:10.900 align:middle line:90%
out on laboratory animals.

00:27:10.900 --> 00:27:13.360 align:middle line:84%
In the first step,
rats are exposed

00:27:13.360 --> 00:27:16.750 align:middle line:84%
to a high dose of the
chemical, usually orally.

00:27:16.750 --> 00:27:20.230 align:middle line:84%
The aim is to determine
the so-called lethal dose,

00:27:20.230 --> 00:27:24.520 align:middle line:90%
or in their jargon, DL50--

00:27:24.520 --> 00:27:26.485 align:middle line:84%
the dose that kills
half the animals.

00:27:26.485 --> 00:27:32.350 align:middle line:90%

00:27:32.350 --> 00:27:35.410 align:middle line:84%
Second step-- the dose
is reduced to observe

00:27:35.410 --> 00:27:36.460 align:middle line:90%
the effects on the rats.

00:27:36.460 --> 00:27:42.540 align:middle line:90%

00:27:42.540 --> 00:27:44.550 align:middle line:84%
What you\'re doing is
looking for a range

00:27:44.550 --> 00:27:47.920 align:middle line:90%
of possible adverse effects.

00:27:47.920 --> 00:27:50.580 align:middle line:84%
So for example, you\'re looking
to see if it causes damage

00:27:50.580 --> 00:27:53.130 align:middle line:84%
to the tissues,
the organs, looking

00:27:53.130 --> 00:27:56.340 align:middle line:84%
for effects on the nervous
system, the immune system.

00:27:56.340 --> 00:27:59.990 align:middle line:84%
Always very interested in the
possibility of causing cancer,

00:27:59.990 --> 00:28:01.490 align:middle line:84%
because that\'s, of
course, something

00:28:01.490 --> 00:28:02.835 align:middle line:90%
that is a concern to people.

00:28:02.835 --> 00:28:05.490 align:middle line:90%

00:28:05.490 --> 00:28:08.220 align:middle line:84%
The experiment is
repeated until finding

00:28:08.220 --> 00:28:12.870 align:middle line:84%
the dose which doesn\'t have any
apparent effect on the animals.

00:28:12.870 --> 00:28:18.000 align:middle line:84%
That\'s what is called the NOAEL,
or no observed adverse effect

00:28:18.000 --> 00:28:20.670 align:middle line:90%
level.

00:28:20.670 --> 00:28:22.920 align:middle line:84%
Then to calculate
the ADI that will

00:28:22.920 --> 00:28:26.940 align:middle line:84%
serve as a reference for humans
a safety factor is applied

00:28:26.940 --> 00:28:31.030 align:middle line:90%
by dividing the NOAEL by 100.

00:28:31.030 --> 00:28:33.750 align:middle line:84%
Finally, the ADI is
a value expressed

00:28:33.750 --> 00:28:37.650 align:middle line:84%
in milligrams of product
per kilo of body weight.

00:28:37.650 --> 00:28:39.570 align:middle line:84%
Take the example
of a pesticide that

00:28:39.570 --> 00:28:42.810 align:middle line:90%
has an ADI of 0.2 milligrams.

00:28:42.810 --> 00:28:45.640 align:middle line:84%
If the consumer
weighs 60 kilograms,

00:28:45.640 --> 00:28:48.960 align:middle line:84%
he is supposed to be
able to ingest 60 times

00:28:48.960 --> 00:28:50.640 align:middle line:90%
0.2 milligrams--

00:28:50.640 --> 00:28:53.910 align:middle line:84%
therefore, 12 milligrams
of pesticide per day

00:28:53.910 --> 00:28:56.400 align:middle line:84%
and during his whole
life without harm.

00:28:56.400 --> 00:29:01.000 align:middle line:90%

00:29:01.000 --> 00:29:03.770 align:middle line:84%
Can we say that this no
observable adverse effect

00:29:03.770 --> 00:29:07.810 align:middle line:90%
level is a safe threshold?

00:29:07.810 --> 00:29:11.650 align:middle line:84%
You can\'t guarantee absolute
safety in anything in life,

00:29:11.650 --> 00:29:16.090 align:middle line:84%
and it will depend
on the quality

00:29:16.090 --> 00:29:20.020 align:middle line:84%
of the studies that are being
conducted with the animals.

00:29:20.020 --> 00:29:25.720 align:middle line:84%
So if you have done
a fairly poor study,

00:29:25.720 --> 00:29:27.460 align:middle line:84%
you might not have
picked up effects

00:29:27.460 --> 00:29:29.740 align:middle line:84%
that would have been seen
in a very good study.

00:29:29.740 --> 00:29:33.160 align:middle line:84%
It\'s a fuzzy measurement
that\'s not extremely precise,

00:29:33.160 --> 00:29:37.510 align:middle line:84%
which is one reason the policy
makers use an uncertainty

00:29:37.510 --> 00:29:38.500 align:middle line:90%
factor.

00:29:38.500 --> 00:29:41.710 align:middle line:84%
The standard approach used by
toxicologists for many years

00:29:41.710 --> 00:29:45.520 align:middle line:84%
is to use a factor of 100,
and that is often explained

00:29:45.520 --> 00:29:48.160 align:middle line:84%
as a tenfold factor
to accommodate

00:29:48.160 --> 00:29:51.250 align:middle line:84%
for possible differences
between what happens in animals

00:29:51.250 --> 00:29:53.920 align:middle line:84%
and what happens in people,
and a tenfold factor

00:29:53.920 --> 00:29:55.450 align:middle line:84%
for the difference
in sensitivity

00:29:55.450 --> 00:29:57.450 align:middle line:90%
of different people.

00:29:57.450 --> 00:29:59.660 align:middle line:84%
And the question is,
is it good enough?

00:29:59.660 --> 00:30:02.620 align:middle line:84%
And there are many people who
would argue, for instance,

00:30:02.620 --> 00:30:08.410 align:middle line:84%
that using a factor of 10 to
account for human variability

00:30:08.410 --> 00:30:09.460 align:middle line:90%
is too narrow.

00:30:09.460 --> 00:30:10.660 align:middle line:90%
It\'s much too small.

00:30:10.660 --> 00:30:12.340 align:middle line:84%
Humans are more
variable than that.

00:30:12.340 --> 00:30:15.400 align:middle line:84%
There are some people for
whom the effect would be zero,

00:30:15.400 --> 00:30:18.850 align:middle line:84%
and others for whom it would
be astronomical at almost

00:30:18.850 --> 00:30:19.900 align:middle line:90%
the same dose.

00:30:19.900 --> 00:30:22.690 align:middle line:84%
The safety factor,
which is normally

00:30:22.690 --> 00:30:27.930 align:middle line:84%
put to the value of 100, is a
figure pulled out of the air

00:30:27.930 --> 00:30:30.409 align:middle line:84%
or sketched on the
back of an envelope.

00:30:30.409 --> 00:30:32.950 align:middle line:84%
I believe it was just a bunch
of guys sitting around a table.

00:30:32.950 --> 00:30:35.440 align:middle line:84%
In America, we call it the
bogsat method-- a bunch of guys

00:30:35.440 --> 00:30:37.000 align:middle line:90%
sitting around a table.

00:30:37.000 --> 00:30:40.270 align:middle line:84%
At some point, a
fellow we used to work

00:30:40.270 --> 00:30:44.740 align:middle line:84%
for the FDA, Bob [? Shiplan, ?]
described it once

00:30:44.740 --> 00:30:48.280 align:middle line:84%
in either a paper or
a talk that I heard.

00:30:48.280 --> 00:30:52.600 align:middle line:84%
And he said really it was in
the 1960s, and a bunch of us--

00:30:52.600 --> 00:30:53.790 align:middle line:90%
we had to make a decision.

00:30:53.790 --> 00:30:57.310 align:middle line:84%
And we needed a way to
decide what level of this

00:30:57.310 --> 00:30:58.750 align:middle line:90%
to permit in foods.

00:30:58.750 --> 00:31:01.810 align:middle line:84%
So we just sort of sat
around and made it up.

00:31:01.810 --> 00:31:04.510 align:middle line:84%
Nevertheless, that
ADI constitutes

00:31:04.510 --> 00:31:07.750 align:middle line:84%
the absolute reference value
for the experts in charge

00:31:07.750 --> 00:31:10.360 align:middle line:84%
of regulating these chemicals
that contaminate our food

00:31:10.360 --> 00:31:13.562 align:middle line:84%
chain, as it does
here at the EFSA,

00:31:13.562 --> 00:31:16.900 align:middle line:84%
the European Food
Safety Authority.

00:31:16.900 --> 00:31:20.421 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:31:20.421 --> 00:31:34.800 align:middle line:90%

00:31:34.800 --> 00:31:37.290 align:middle line:84%
It\'s not a scientific
judgment, firstly,

00:31:37.290 --> 00:31:39.510 align:middle line:84%
because it\'s not a judgment
about the magnitude

00:31:39.510 --> 00:31:40.830 align:middle line:90%
of the risk.

00:31:40.830 --> 00:31:44.430 align:middle line:84%
It\'s a judgment about the
acceptability of risk,

00:31:44.430 --> 00:31:46.790 align:middle line:84%
and judgement
about acceptability

00:31:46.790 --> 00:31:50.100 align:middle line:84%
are essentially social
normative, valuative,

00:31:50.100 --> 00:31:53.850 align:middle line:84%
political, commercial judgement
acceptable-- acceptable

00:31:53.850 --> 00:31:55.502 align:middle line:90%
to whom?

00:31:55.502 --> 00:32:01.960 align:middle line:84%
And judgments of acceptability
are often made about--

00:32:01.960 --> 00:32:04.270 align:middle line:84%
is the risk
acceptable in relation

00:32:04.270 --> 00:32:07.330 align:middle line:90%
to some alleged benefit?

00:32:07.330 --> 00:32:11.430 align:middle line:84%
But the people that benefit
from the use of chemicals

00:32:11.430 --> 00:32:13.660 align:middle line:84%
are almost invariably
the companies and not

00:32:13.660 --> 00:32:14.620 align:middle line:90%
the consumers.

00:32:14.620 --> 00:32:16.510 align:middle line:84%
So that consumers
take the risks,

00:32:16.510 --> 00:32:17.980 align:middle line:84%
and the companies
get the benefit.

00:32:17.980 --> 00:32:22.840 align:middle line:90%

00:32:22.840 --> 00:32:26.530 align:middle line:84%
And although our knowledge of
pesticides is still incomplete,

00:32:26.530 --> 00:32:28.930 align:middle line:84%
research has given
some of the answers,

00:32:28.930 --> 00:32:33.160 align:middle line:84%
making economic
poisons safer to use.

00:32:33.160 --> 00:32:34.840 align:middle line:84%
Men have been drinking
measured amounts

00:32:34.840 --> 00:32:38.629 align:middle line:84%
of diluted pesticide for several
months in this long range test.

00:32:38.629 --> 00:32:44.120 align:middle line:90%

00:32:44.120 --> 00:32:47.340 align:middle line:84%
In companion studies,
samples of fruit, vegetables,

00:32:47.340 --> 00:32:50.190 align:middle line:84%
and other food products
are collected and analyzed

00:32:50.190 --> 00:32:56.160 align:middle line:84%
for poisonous residue,
and complete meals

00:32:56.160 --> 00:32:59.340 align:middle line:84%
are analyzed to determine
the average daily consumption

00:32:59.340 --> 00:33:02.122 align:middle line:84%
of pesticide contained
in the food we eat.

00:33:02.122 --> 00:33:05.360 align:middle line:90%

00:33:05.360 --> 00:33:08.330 align:middle line:84%
That\'s exactly the question
I was asking myself.

00:33:08.330 --> 00:33:11.990 align:middle line:84%
What\'s the point of the ADI
if we don\'t take into account

00:33:11.990 --> 00:33:14.840 align:middle line:84%
the pesticide residue levels
that we find in treated fruit

00:33:14.840 --> 00:33:16.610 align:middle line:90%
and vegetables?

00:33:16.610 --> 00:33:20.300 align:middle line:84%
In fact, the experts invented
a second tool inseparable

00:33:20.300 --> 00:33:25.955 align:middle line:84%
from the ADI, the maximum
residue levels, or MRL.

00:33:25.955 --> 00:33:28.450 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:33:28.450 --> 00:33:53.440 align:middle line:90%

00:33:53.440 --> 00:33:56.130 align:middle line:90%
Very complicated indeed.

00:33:56.130 --> 00:33:58.500 align:middle line:84%
Let\'s take the example
of an insecticide

00:33:58.500 --> 00:34:03.150 align:middle line:84%
with an acceptable daily intake
of 0.01 milligrams per kilogram

00:34:03.150 --> 00:34:04.810 align:middle line:90%
of body weight.

00:34:04.810 --> 00:34:09.580 align:middle line:84%
This insecticide can be used
on 20-odd fruit and vegetables.

00:34:09.580 --> 00:34:12.989 align:middle line:84%
How can we know if we,
as consumers, will not

00:34:12.989 --> 00:34:15.810 align:middle line:84%
reach in one day the
dose of insecticide which

00:34:15.810 --> 00:34:17.969 align:middle line:90%
is considered as acceptable?

00:34:17.969 --> 00:34:21.179 align:middle line:84%
To do that, the regulators
must use field tests

00:34:21.179 --> 00:34:23.610 align:middle line:84%
to evaluate our
potential exposure

00:34:23.610 --> 00:34:25.650 align:middle line:84%
by measuring the
quantities of residue that

00:34:25.650 --> 00:34:30.179 align:middle line:84%
remain on each agricultural
product after harvest.

00:34:30.179 --> 00:34:33.659 align:middle line:84%
Then they need to carry
out food intake evaluations

00:34:33.659 --> 00:34:36.330 align:middle line:84%
to determine which fruit
and vegetables we eat

00:34:36.330 --> 00:34:38.639 align:middle line:84%
and in which
quantities, taking into

00:34:38.639 --> 00:34:42.090 align:middle line:84%
account the food habits that
vary from one country or one

00:34:42.090 --> 00:34:44.650 align:middle line:90%
continent to another.

00:34:44.650 --> 00:34:47.190 align:middle line:84%
This will result in
thousands of figures,

00:34:47.190 --> 00:34:49.770 align:middle line:84%
which enable them to
establish the maximum residue

00:34:49.770 --> 00:34:52.350 align:middle line:84%
levels they will authorize
for each food item.

00:34:52.350 --> 00:34:55.500 align:middle line:90%

00:34:55.500 --> 00:34:58.610 align:middle line:90%
Who fixes these levels?

00:34:58.610 --> 00:35:02.270 align:middle line:84%
A AN organization which goes
under the enigmatic name

00:35:02.270 --> 00:35:05.360 align:middle line:90%
of Codex Alimentarius.

00:35:05.360 --> 00:35:08.570 align:middle line:84%
It is responsible for
establishing international food

00:35:08.570 --> 00:35:11.570 align:middle line:84%
standards, and it is advised
by two committees which

00:35:11.570 --> 00:35:16.070 align:middle line:84%
report to the WHO and the
FAO called the joint expert

00:35:16.070 --> 00:35:18.996 align:middle line:84%
committee on food
additives, JECFA,

00:35:18.996 --> 00:35:23.030 align:middle line:84%
and the joint meeting on
pesticides residues, or JMPR.

00:35:23.030 --> 00:35:28.130 align:middle line:90%

00:35:28.130 --> 00:35:30.650 align:middle line:84%
I obtained an
exceptional authorization

00:35:30.650 --> 00:35:34.190 align:middle line:84%
to attend the annual
meeting of the JMPR, made up

00:35:34.190 --> 00:35:37.820 align:middle line:90%
of international experts.

00:35:37.820 --> 00:35:42.830 align:middle line:84%
Its mission is to evaluate a
pesticide\'s toxicological data

00:35:42.830 --> 00:35:48.110 align:middle line:84%
in order to establish its
ADI, but also to fix its MRLs

00:35:48.110 --> 00:35:51.200 align:middle line:90%
for each agricultural product.

00:35:51.200 --> 00:35:55.040 align:middle line:84%
During the September, 2009
session, 21 pesticides

00:35:55.040 --> 00:35:58.550 align:middle line:84%
were assessed, including
chlorpyrifos methyl,

00:35:58.550 --> 00:36:01.801 align:middle line:84%
an insecticide manufactured by
the American company Dow Agro

00:36:01.801 --> 00:36:02.300 align:middle line:90%
Sciences.

00:36:02.300 --> 00:36:05.490 align:middle line:90%

00:36:05.490 --> 00:36:08.770 align:middle line:84%
If we take the example
of chlorpyrifos methyl,

00:36:08.770 --> 00:36:12.380 align:middle line:84%
it\'s used as an
insecticide worldwide.

00:36:12.380 --> 00:36:15.850 align:middle line:84%
How can we know that
the consumer will not

00:36:15.850 --> 00:36:23.050 align:middle line:84%
achieve the ADI of chlorpyrifos
methyl just in one day

00:36:23.050 --> 00:36:26.940 align:middle line:84%
because he\'s eating
three apples, two--

00:36:26.940 --> 00:36:29.980 align:middle line:84%
I don\'t know--
grapefruits, and--

00:36:29.980 --> 00:36:31.750 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, that\'s a question.

00:36:31.750 --> 00:36:34.090 align:middle line:84%
I can see that, but
you have to realize

00:36:34.090 --> 00:36:36.470 align:middle line:90%
that the level of the MRL--

00:36:36.470 --> 00:36:38.890 align:middle line:84%
that\'s the level that
we are assessing--

00:36:38.890 --> 00:36:44.170 align:middle line:84%
is much higher than what you
are in reality exposed to.

00:36:44.170 --> 00:36:48.880 align:middle line:84%
We know that from
monitoring data that--

00:36:48.880 --> 00:36:51.580 align:middle line:84%
because, of course, not
all the apples that you eat

00:36:51.580 --> 00:36:54.970 align:middle line:84%
have been treated with
chlorpyrifos methyl.

00:36:54.970 --> 00:36:57.250 align:middle line:84%
So you have to realize
that this intake

00:36:57.250 --> 00:37:00.820 align:middle line:84%
assessment is a theoretical
worst case assessment.

00:37:00.820 --> 00:37:04.660 align:middle line:84%
It has not really anything
to do with the real world.

00:37:04.660 --> 00:37:08.410 align:middle line:84%
In the real world, you will
get a mixture on your plate

00:37:08.410 --> 00:37:11.590 align:middle line:84%
from potatoes that
have been treated,

00:37:11.590 --> 00:37:14.350 align:middle line:84%
but the carrots have
not been treated,

00:37:14.350 --> 00:37:17.560 align:middle line:84%
and the salad has
not been treated.

00:37:17.560 --> 00:37:21.100 align:middle line:84%
So you see the probability
that you would receive

00:37:21.100 --> 00:37:25.420 align:middle line:84%
within one day everything
at a very high residue level

00:37:25.420 --> 00:37:26.520 align:middle line:90%
is extremely low.

00:37:26.520 --> 00:37:29.760 align:middle line:90%

00:37:29.760 --> 00:37:33.540 align:middle line:84%
In fact, it isn\'t
very reassuring.

00:37:33.540 --> 00:37:36.960 align:middle line:84%
Basically, this
theoretical worst case

00:37:36.960 --> 00:37:40.920 align:middle line:84%
is calculated from data
submitted by the industry.

00:37:40.920 --> 00:37:43.650 align:middle line:84%
This data takes up
miles of shelf space

00:37:43.650 --> 00:37:46.800 align:middle line:90%
in the basement of the WHO.

00:37:46.800 --> 00:37:49.590 align:middle line:84%
For each pesticide,
the manufacturer

00:37:49.590 --> 00:37:51.840 align:middle line:84%
sends thousands of
pages concerning

00:37:51.840 --> 00:37:55.410 align:middle line:84%
the toxicological studies
and measurements of residue

00:37:55.410 --> 00:37:57.990 align:middle line:90%
carried out during field tests.

00:37:57.990 --> 00:38:01.260 align:middle line:84%
Some malicious gossip claims
it is the industry\'s strategy

00:38:01.260 --> 00:38:03.510 align:middle line:84%
to flood the experts
with data, which

00:38:03.510 --> 00:38:04.770 align:middle line:90%
will take months to verify.

00:38:04.770 --> 00:38:09.600 align:middle line:90%

00:38:09.600 --> 00:38:11.370 align:middle line:90%
So let\'s start again.

00:38:11.370 --> 00:38:14.250 align:middle line:84%
It was impossible to know
how these experts actually

00:38:14.250 --> 00:38:19.160 align:middle line:84%
work because we were not
allowed to record their voices.

00:38:19.160 --> 00:38:22.190 align:middle line:84%
At the JMPR,
everything is secret--

00:38:22.190 --> 00:38:25.610 align:middle line:84%
the identity of the experts,
the content of their sessions,

00:38:25.610 --> 00:38:28.100 align:middle line:84%
which take place
behind closed doors,

00:38:28.100 --> 00:38:32.220 align:middle line:84%
and industry data, which
are business confidential.

00:38:32.220 --> 00:38:35.005 align:middle line:84%
Have you reviewed studies
submitted by Dow Chemical?

00:38:35.005 --> 00:38:35.760 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:38:35.760 --> 00:38:38.310 align:middle line:84%
Which is produced of
[INAUDIBLE] material?

00:38:38.310 --> 00:38:39.050 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:38:39.050 --> 00:38:41.800 align:middle line:84%
It\'s interesting because
they are all unpublished

00:38:41.800 --> 00:38:43.360 align:middle line:90%
and under data protection.

00:38:43.360 --> 00:38:43.890 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:38:43.890 --> 00:38:46.950 align:middle line:90%
And you can see it if you--

00:38:46.950 --> 00:38:48.355 align:middle line:90%
Oh, yes.

00:38:48.355 --> 00:38:53.410 align:middle line:90%
It sounds likely.

00:38:53.410 --> 00:38:56.540 align:middle line:84%
The study made by the
industry are proprietary data

00:38:56.540 --> 00:38:59.680 align:middle line:84%
and are provided
to JMPR, as well as

00:38:59.680 --> 00:39:02.320 align:middle line:84%
to the other
national authorities

00:39:02.320 --> 00:39:06.430 align:middle line:84%
under the [INAUDIBLE]
of confidentiality.

00:39:06.430 --> 00:39:10.900 align:middle line:84%
But if you go to the
documents produced

00:39:10.900 --> 00:39:13.240 align:middle line:84%
by JMPR or by other
authorities, you

00:39:13.240 --> 00:39:17.230 align:middle line:84%
will find extensive
summaries of those data.

00:39:17.230 --> 00:39:18.870 align:middle line:90%
Summaries, but not raw data?

00:39:18.870 --> 00:39:22.040 align:middle line:84%
Not raw data, because
these are proprietary.

00:39:22.040 --> 00:39:26.860 align:middle line:84%
So you have to trust
us that we report

00:39:26.860 --> 00:39:28.990 align:middle line:84%
and interpret
correctly the data.

00:39:28.990 --> 00:39:32.170 align:middle line:84%
The practice of
keeping things secret

00:39:32.170 --> 00:39:35.650 align:middle line:84%
only serves the commercial
interests of the chemical

00:39:35.650 --> 00:39:39.790 align:middle line:84%
companies and is entirely
antithetical to the interests

00:39:39.790 --> 00:39:42.160 align:middle line:90%
of consumers and public health.

00:39:42.160 --> 00:39:45.220 align:middle line:84%
And I think that
unless and until

00:39:45.220 --> 00:39:48.790 align:middle line:84%
the regulatory authorities of
the World Health Organization

00:39:48.790 --> 00:39:53.560 align:middle line:84%
change their practice then
they do not deserve any trust

00:39:53.560 --> 00:39:56.050 align:middle line:90%
whatsoever from the public.

00:39:56.050 --> 00:39:59.000 align:middle line:84%
Why are the data
under protection?

00:39:59.000 --> 00:40:00.590 align:middle line:84%
Copyright protection
and things like

00:40:00.590 --> 00:40:02.350 align:middle line:90%
this-- they\'re legal issues.

00:40:02.350 --> 00:40:07.310 align:middle line:84%
The owner is proprietary to the
company who submits the data.

00:40:07.310 --> 00:40:09.440 align:middle line:90%
They own the data.

00:40:09.440 --> 00:40:17.330 align:middle line:84%
So do you have to really ask the
industry why this is the case?

00:40:17.330 --> 00:40:20.600 align:middle line:84%
Actually, the only
evidence for which

00:40:20.600 --> 00:40:23.450 align:middle line:84%
there is any commercial
justification--

00:40:23.450 --> 00:40:25.610 align:middle line:84%
legitimate commercial
justification

00:40:25.610 --> 00:40:27.260 align:middle line:90%
for keeping confidential--

00:40:27.260 --> 00:40:30.590 align:middle line:84%
is evidence on the
manufacturing process,

00:40:30.590 --> 00:40:33.080 align:middle line:84%
because companies can use
different manufacturing

00:40:33.080 --> 00:40:35.150 align:middle line:90%
processes.

00:40:35.150 --> 00:40:39.620 align:middle line:84%
And that may be commercially
sensitive information,

00:40:39.620 --> 00:40:44.180 align:middle line:84%
but toxicological evidence
about the safety or toxicity

00:40:44.180 --> 00:40:45.410 align:middle line:90%
of product--

00:40:45.410 --> 00:40:49.130 align:middle line:84%
all of that information should
be in the public domain.

00:40:49.130 --> 00:40:51.510 align:middle line:84%
But if you take the
example of tobacco,

00:40:51.510 --> 00:40:54.940 align:middle line:84%
the studies submitted by
the cigarette manufacturers

00:40:54.940 --> 00:40:57.130 align:middle line:90%
were flawed.

00:40:57.130 --> 00:41:01.270 align:middle line:84%
I would say manipulated,
false studies, and so on.

00:41:01.270 --> 00:41:05.280 align:middle line:84%
And during years [INAUDIBLE]
have been abused during years

00:41:05.280 --> 00:41:07.346 align:middle line:90%
by industry.

00:41:07.346 --> 00:41:08.470 align:middle line:90%
I\'m not commenting on that.

00:41:08.470 --> 00:41:10.610 align:middle line:90%
But is that true?

00:41:10.610 --> 00:41:12.070 align:middle line:90%
I\'m not commenting on that.

00:41:12.070 --> 00:41:15.490 align:middle line:84%
That has also happened before
I even joined the organization,

00:41:15.490 --> 00:41:17.135 align:middle line:84%
so I really don\'t
know all the details.

00:41:17.135 --> 00:41:17.968 align:middle line:90%
That\'s why I can\'t--

00:41:17.968 --> 00:41:20.200 align:middle line:84%
But I know that [INAUDIBLE]
in the institution

00:41:20.200 --> 00:41:23.160 align:middle line:84%
it\'s a very sad
story I would say.

00:41:23.160 --> 00:41:23.830 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, it is.

00:41:23.830 --> 00:41:24.490 align:middle line:90%
It clearly is.

00:41:24.490 --> 00:41:27.520 align:middle line:84%
I\'m not sure if this is really
comparable with this pesticide

00:41:27.520 --> 00:41:32.230 align:middle line:84%
situation, but the point is
like I\'ve already mentioned.

00:41:32.230 --> 00:41:33.940 align:middle line:84%
You have a lot of
discussion going on

00:41:33.940 --> 00:41:36.010 align:middle line:84%
about this data
protection, and we\'ll

00:41:36.010 --> 00:41:39.080 align:middle line:84%
see where it leads
us in the future.

00:41:39.080 --> 00:41:41.200 align:middle line:84%
In the meantime, one
thing is certain.

00:41:41.200 --> 00:41:43.750 align:middle line:84%
For the industry, the
stakes are enormous.

00:41:43.750 --> 00:41:46.930 align:middle line:84%
The world pesticide market
represents more than 25 billion

00:41:46.930 --> 00:41:48.940 align:middle line:90%
euros per year.

00:41:48.940 --> 00:41:52.900 align:middle line:84%
In Europe alone, about 400
molecules are authorized,

00:41:52.900 --> 00:41:58.330 align:middle line:84%
and 308 million pounds are
spread on fields every year.

00:41:58.330 --> 00:42:02.440 align:middle line:84%
Each pesticide has its ADI
and MRLs for each food item.

00:42:02.440 --> 00:42:04.720 align:middle line:84%
When we see all
these figures, we

00:42:04.720 --> 00:42:08.200 align:middle line:84%
might find that this regulatory
scheme was reassuring

00:42:08.200 --> 00:42:11.740 align:middle line:84%
if the ADI and MRLs were
scientific values sufficiently

00:42:11.740 --> 00:42:15.730 align:middle line:84%
reliable to be definite,
but this isn\'t the case,

00:42:15.730 --> 00:42:17.530 align:middle line:90%
as procymidone shows--

00:42:17.530 --> 00:42:20.800 align:middle line:84%
a fungicide which was
re-examined by the JMPR

00:42:20.800 --> 00:42:24.490 align:middle line:84%
after a request from the
European Food Safety Authority.

00:42:24.490 --> 00:42:28.270 align:middle line:84%
There was some concern by
the European Union regarding

00:42:28.270 --> 00:42:30.780 align:middle line:90%
the limit that was set.

00:42:30.780 --> 00:42:31.990 align:middle line:90%
[INAUDIBLE]

00:42:31.990 --> 00:42:33.560 align:middle line:84%
You\'re right,
because [INAUDIBLE]

00:42:33.560 --> 00:42:36.110 align:middle line:90%
to lower ADI of procymidone.

00:42:36.110 --> 00:42:39.705 align:middle line:84%
And finally the
documents say, if they\'re

00:42:39.705 --> 00:42:42.700 align:middle line:84%
proposed to change the
following MRL in order

00:42:42.700 --> 00:42:46.880 align:middle line:84%
to reduce the acute or
consumer exposure to a level

00:42:46.880 --> 00:42:55.180 align:middle line:84%
where no negative consumer
health effects are expected,

00:42:55.180 --> 00:42:57.731 align:middle line:84%
when I read this document
from EFSA, for instance?

00:42:57.731 --> 00:43:00.960 align:middle line:90%

00:43:00.960 --> 00:43:08.240 align:middle line:84%
That means that the idea of the
MRL set up by EFSA or the JMPR

00:43:08.240 --> 00:43:09.582 align:middle line:90%
are never definitive.

00:43:09.582 --> 00:43:12.680 align:middle line:90%

00:43:12.680 --> 00:43:13.740 align:middle line:90%
Well, yes.

00:43:13.740 --> 00:43:17.310 align:middle line:84%
Nothing in life is
definitive, including science.

00:43:17.310 --> 00:43:25.560 align:middle line:84%
So if there are no new data,
and new data are interpreted

00:43:25.560 --> 00:43:28.830 align:middle line:84%
that gives you the necessity
of changing what you said,

00:43:28.830 --> 00:43:29.850 align:middle line:90%
you do it.

00:43:29.850 --> 00:43:31.750 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:43:31.750 --> 00:44:25.474 align:middle line:90%

00:44:25.474 --> 00:44:29.170 align:middle line:84%
I mean, if you really want
zero risk, you\'re right,

00:44:29.170 --> 00:44:33.850 align:middle line:84%
you should not use
the pesticides,

00:44:33.850 --> 00:44:35.560 align:middle line:84%
and that is a
political decision.

00:44:35.560 --> 00:44:39.760 align:middle line:84%
I mean, as long as politicians
say that we have to allow it

00:44:39.760 --> 00:44:43.540 align:middle line:84%
and we need-- the farmers
need it to grow enough crops,

00:44:43.540 --> 00:44:47.290 align:middle line:90%
then this is the best we can do.

00:44:47.290 --> 00:44:49.870 align:middle line:90%
This is the best we can do.

00:44:49.870 --> 00:44:53.620 align:middle line:84%
This admission sums up the
first part of my investigation,

00:44:53.620 --> 00:44:56.380 align:middle line:84%
where I understood that the
residue of poisons that we find

00:44:56.380 --> 00:44:59.840 align:middle line:84%
on our food are managed by
an arbitrary and approximate

00:44:59.840 --> 00:45:00.770 align:middle line:90%
regulatory system.

00:45:00.770 --> 00:45:06.170 align:middle line:90%

00:45:06.170 --> 00:45:08.390 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:45:08.390 --> 00:45:36.860 align:middle line:90%

00:45:36.860 --> 00:45:39.620 align:middle line:84%
The question is
indeed unavoidable.

00:45:39.620 --> 00:45:42.320 align:middle line:84%
If the regulatory
process for chemicals

00:45:42.320 --> 00:45:45.710 align:middle line:84%
is based on tests carried
out by the industry,

00:45:45.710 --> 00:45:49.700 align:middle line:84%
we must understand how
that actually works.

00:45:49.700 --> 00:45:52.370 align:middle line:84%
I\'ve chosen the example
of food additives--

00:45:52.370 --> 00:45:56.090 align:middle line:84%
emulsifiers, preservatives,
colorings, and sweeteners.

00:45:56.090 --> 00:45:58.760 align:middle line:84%
These substances
invaded our diets

00:45:58.760 --> 00:46:00.530 align:middle line:84%
with the birth of
the food processing

00:46:00.530 --> 00:46:04.410 align:middle line:84%
industry that went hand-in-hand
with the Green Revolution.

00:46:04.410 --> 00:46:07.000 align:middle line:84%
Their potential danger has
been known for 50 years.

00:46:07.000 --> 00:46:13.150 align:middle line:90%

00:46:13.150 --> 00:46:15.600 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:46:15.600 --> 00:46:49.280 align:middle line:90%

00:46:49.280 --> 00:46:53.980 align:middle line:84%
300 food additives
are allowed in Europe,

00:46:53.980 --> 00:46:57.460 align:middle line:84%
among them, aspartame, an
artificial sweetener which

00:46:57.460 --> 00:47:00.040 align:middle line:84%
we find in at least
6,000 everyday products

00:47:00.040 --> 00:47:04.060 align:middle line:84%
such as soft drinks,
sugar free products,

00:47:04.060 --> 00:47:09.910 align:middle line:84%
tabletop sweeteners, chewing
gum, but also in medicine.

00:47:09.910 --> 00:47:13.150 align:middle line:84%
The story of
aspartame is typical.

00:47:13.150 --> 00:47:15.910 align:middle line:84%
We find all the techniques
used by the industry

00:47:15.910 --> 00:47:17.850 align:middle line:84%
to manipulate the
regulatory process.

00:47:17.850 --> 00:47:24.890 align:middle line:90%

00:47:24.890 --> 00:47:28.940 align:middle line:84%
Everything started in
1965 when a researcher

00:47:28.940 --> 00:47:31.910 align:middle line:84%
from the pharmaceutical
company GD Searle

00:47:31.910 --> 00:47:35.150 align:middle line:84%
discovered the
molecule by chance.

00:47:35.150 --> 00:47:37.610 align:middle line:84%
Nine years later,
the company submitted

00:47:37.610 --> 00:47:40.820 align:middle line:84%
a pre-marketing approval
request to the Food and Drug

00:47:40.820 --> 00:47:43.580 align:middle line:90%
Administration.

00:47:43.580 --> 00:47:46.400 align:middle line:84%
In 1981, the FDA
approved the product

00:47:46.400 --> 00:47:51.826 align:middle line:84%
under the name NutraSweet
with an ADI of 50 milligrams.

00:47:51.826 --> 00:47:54.250 align:middle line:90%
And you think aspartame is safe?

00:47:54.250 --> 00:47:55.020 align:middle line:90%
Yes, I do.

00:47:55.020 --> 00:47:57.710 align:middle line:90%
You do.

00:47:57.710 --> 00:48:01.050 align:middle line:84%
When the FDA established
the ADI of aspartame,

00:48:01.050 --> 00:48:04.042 align:middle line:90%
on which studies was it based?

00:48:04.042 --> 00:48:08.040 align:middle line:84%
I mean, it was a sole studie
submitted by the manufacturer?

00:48:08.040 --> 00:48:10.860 align:middle line:90%
That\'s right.

00:48:10.860 --> 00:48:13.140 align:middle line:84%
This is the heart
of the problem.

00:48:13.140 --> 00:48:16.590 align:middle line:84%
The tests submitted by Searle
to obtain the homologation

00:48:16.590 --> 00:48:19.590 align:middle line:84%
for aspartame were
subject to heated debate

00:48:19.590 --> 00:48:24.480 align:middle line:84%
in the \'70s ignited by John
Olney, a neurologist whom

00:48:24.480 --> 00:48:28.770 align:middle line:84%
we see here giving a press
conference in 1996, 15 years

00:48:28.770 --> 00:48:31.410 align:middle line:84%
after aspartame was
put on the market.

00:48:31.410 --> 00:48:34.680 align:middle line:84%
The article we\'ve just published
that shows an increased

00:48:34.680 --> 00:48:38.850 align:middle line:84%
incidence of brain tumors and
an increased malignancy of brain

00:48:38.850 --> 00:48:43.590 align:middle line:84%
tumors in human populations
in the United States

00:48:43.590 --> 00:48:48.630 align:middle line:84%
starting about three years
after aspartame was introduced.

00:48:48.630 --> 00:48:53.820 align:middle line:84%
What kind of studies did
you carry out on aspartame?

00:48:53.820 --> 00:49:00.820 align:middle line:84%
Well, that was
back in about 1971,

00:49:00.820 --> 00:49:04.620 align:middle line:84%
and actually the
first study I did

00:49:04.620 --> 00:49:09.130 align:middle line:84%
was with aspartate,
which is not aspartame.

00:49:09.130 --> 00:49:15.770 align:middle line:84%
Aspartame is a combination
of two amino acids, aspartate

00:49:15.770 --> 00:49:18.180 align:middle line:90%
and phenylalanine.

00:49:18.180 --> 00:49:23.360 align:middle line:84%
And I had shown that the
aspartate component by itself

00:49:23.360 --> 00:49:29.040 align:middle line:84%
destroyed nerve cells just
like monosodium glutamate does.

00:49:29.040 --> 00:49:35.010 align:middle line:84%
So I asked GD Searle to send
me a sample of aspartame, which

00:49:35.010 --> 00:49:39.930 align:middle line:84%
they did, and I fed
it to infant mice,

00:49:39.930 --> 00:49:43.990 align:middle line:84%
and it caused the same
brain damage that aspartate

00:49:43.990 --> 00:49:46.050 align:middle line:90%
and glutamate caused.

00:49:46.050 --> 00:49:52.330 align:middle line:84%
But if aspartame is really
inducing brain tumors,

00:49:52.330 --> 00:49:55.620 align:middle line:90%
it\'s a big health issue.

00:49:55.620 --> 00:50:00.570 align:middle line:84%
And why did the FDA
approve aspartame?

00:50:00.570 --> 00:50:03.520 align:middle line:84%
Because the FDA is not doing
its job in that regard.

00:50:03.520 --> 00:50:10.240 align:middle line:90%

00:50:10.240 --> 00:50:14.110 align:middle line:84%
The way the FDA managed the
aspartame case is indeed

00:50:14.110 --> 00:50:16.945 align:middle line:90%
troubling.

00:50:16.945 --> 00:50:19.370 align:middle line:90%
After one half mile, turn left.

00:50:19.370 --> 00:50:22.520 align:middle line:84%
I managed to gain access
to the internal archives

00:50:22.520 --> 00:50:26.690 align:middle line:84%
of the agency thanks to the
tenacity of Betty Martini, who

00:50:26.690 --> 00:50:30.260 align:middle line:84%
has set up a documentation
center on aspartame called

00:50:30.260 --> 00:50:33.050 align:middle line:90%
Mission Possible International.

00:50:33.050 --> 00:50:36.410 align:middle line:84%
She has collected incriminating
evidence obtained thanks

00:50:36.410 --> 00:50:38.570 align:middle line:84%
to the Freedom of
Information Act,

00:50:38.570 --> 00:50:41.690 align:middle line:84%
a procedure that allows any
American citizen to have access

00:50:41.690 --> 00:50:42.980 align:middle line:90%
to government documents.

00:50:42.980 --> 00:50:48.230 align:middle line:90%

00:50:48.230 --> 00:50:51.890 align:middle line:84%
That\'s how I found out
that, alerted by John Olney,

00:50:51.890 --> 00:50:54.620 align:middle line:84%
the FDA set up two
internal investigations

00:50:54.620 --> 00:50:57.325 align:middle line:84%
to assess the validity of
the data provided by Searle.

00:50:57.325 --> 00:51:01.500 align:middle line:90%

00:51:01.500 --> 00:51:05.520 align:middle line:84%
Finally, in August,
1977, Dr. Jerome Bressler

00:51:05.520 --> 00:51:07.830 align:middle line:84%
wrote a very critical
report denouncing

00:51:07.830 --> 00:51:10.740 align:middle line:84%
all the irregularities
of the firm\'s studies.

00:51:10.740 --> 00:51:13.472 align:middle line:90%
Here is an extract.

00:51:13.472 --> 00:51:18.670 align:middle line:84%
\"Observation records
indicated that animal A23LM

00:51:18.670 --> 00:51:23.880 align:middle line:84%
was alive at week 88, dead
from week 92 through week 104,

00:51:23.880 --> 00:51:29.890 align:middle line:84%
alive at week 108,
and dead at week 112.\"

00:51:29.890 --> 00:51:32.840 align:middle line:84%
Then the FDA set up a
public inquiry board

00:51:32.840 --> 00:51:38.120 align:middle line:84%
that completed its report on
the 30th of September, 1980.

00:51:38.120 --> 00:51:40.040 align:middle line:84%
The board concludes
that approval

00:51:40.040 --> 00:51:42.830 align:middle line:84%
of aspartame for
use in foods should

00:51:42.830 --> 00:51:46.340 align:middle line:84%
be withheld at least until
the question concerning

00:51:46.340 --> 00:51:49.970 align:middle line:84%
its possible oncogenic
potential has been resolved

00:51:49.970 --> 00:51:51.650 align:middle line:90%
by further experiments.

00:51:51.650 --> 00:51:58.800 align:middle line:90%

00:51:58.800 --> 00:52:02.760 align:middle line:84%
The irregularities observed
by the FDA scientists were

00:52:02.760 --> 00:52:07.920 align:middle line:84%
confirmed during hearings
organized by Congress in 1987

00:52:07.920 --> 00:52:10.230 align:middle line:84%
and in particular by
Jacqueline Verette,

00:52:10.230 --> 00:52:13.530 align:middle line:84%
one of the agency\'s
toxicologists.

00:52:13.530 --> 00:52:15.090 align:middle line:90%
There\'s no doubt about it.

00:52:15.090 --> 00:52:17.720 align:middle line:84%
NutraSweet has captured
the hearts and the taste

00:52:17.720 --> 00:52:20.660 align:middle line:90%
buds of the American consumer.

00:52:20.660 --> 00:52:24.730 align:middle line:84%
Dr. Verette, happy
to hear from you.

00:52:24.730 --> 00:52:26.190 align:middle line:90%
Thank you, Senator Nussbaum.

00:52:26.190 --> 00:52:28.560 align:middle line:84%
I have no qualms in
saying that, if we

00:52:28.560 --> 00:52:31.320 align:middle line:84%
are basing the
amount of aspartame

00:52:31.320 --> 00:52:33.570 align:middle line:84%
that we\'re putting
in all of these foods

00:52:33.570 --> 00:52:39.460 align:middle line:84%
today on these studies,
then it is a disaster.

00:52:39.460 --> 00:52:43.380 align:middle line:84%
I feel that, at a minimum,
they are seriously

00:52:43.380 --> 00:52:47.640 align:middle line:84%
flawed because of enough
problems in the way

00:52:47.640 --> 00:52:50.790 align:middle line:84%
they conducted that it makes
it difficult to interpret

00:52:50.790 --> 00:52:56.100 align:middle line:84%
them and come up with any kind
of a figure in which we could

00:52:56.100 --> 00:52:58.605 align:middle line:90%
have confidence for an ADI.

00:52:58.605 --> 00:53:02.430 align:middle line:84%
I spoke before about your
colleague, Dr. Verette.

00:53:02.430 --> 00:53:05.602 align:middle line:84%
She wrote this book
here, \"Eating May

00:53:05.602 --> 00:53:08.520 align:middle line:90%
be Hazardous to Your Health.\"

00:53:08.520 --> 00:53:13.160 align:middle line:84%
And maybe you can
open to page 96,

00:53:13.160 --> 00:53:14.720 align:middle line:84%
and we\'d like to
have your comments.

00:53:14.720 --> 00:53:17.630 align:middle line:84%
You have been working
here for a long time.

00:53:17.630 --> 00:53:24.680 align:middle line:84%
She says it\'s not that
government decision makers are

00:53:24.680 --> 00:53:26.110 align:middle line:90%
corrupt.

00:53:26.110 --> 00:53:29.780 align:middle line:84%
That\'s a good thing,
but their sense of duty

00:53:29.780 --> 00:53:35.290 align:middle line:84%
is constantly eroded by
the industry contacts

00:53:35.290 --> 00:53:37.730 align:middle line:84%
and the consideration
of short term effects

00:53:37.730 --> 00:53:42.040 align:middle line:84%
on industry instead of long
term effects on consumers.

00:53:42.040 --> 00:53:43.300 align:middle line:90%
Do you think it\'s accurate?

00:53:43.300 --> 00:53:44.030 align:middle line:90%
No.

00:53:44.030 --> 00:53:44.750 align:middle line:90%
You don\'t agree with her?

00:53:44.750 --> 00:53:45.250 align:middle line:90%
I don\'t.

00:53:45.250 --> 00:53:46.820 align:middle line:90%
No, I don\'t agree with her.

00:53:46.820 --> 00:53:50.440 align:middle line:90%

00:53:50.440 --> 00:53:53.440 align:middle line:84%
I don\'t think that
any of us in the FDA

00:53:53.440 --> 00:53:56.800 align:middle line:84%
would feel that we\'re
doing our job adequately

00:53:56.800 --> 00:54:02.290 align:middle line:84%
and appropriately if we didn\'t
put consumer safety ahead

00:54:02.290 --> 00:54:07.670 align:middle line:84%
of any kind of consideration
of industry well-being.

00:54:07.670 --> 00:54:12.490 align:middle line:84%
That\'s turning the
whole safety assessment

00:54:12.490 --> 00:54:13.960 align:middle line:90%
paradigm on its head.

00:54:13.960 --> 00:54:17.900 align:middle line:84%
No, I disagree with
that completely.

00:54:17.900 --> 00:54:21.320 align:middle line:84%
And yet, during the
congressional hearings

00:54:21.320 --> 00:54:23.870 align:middle line:84%
in which David
Hattan took part, we

00:54:23.870 --> 00:54:26.780 align:middle line:84%
discover a surprising
proximity between some

00:54:26.780 --> 00:54:32.660 align:middle line:84%
of the managers of the FDA and
Searle, which from 1976 to 1990

00:54:32.660 --> 00:54:35.930 align:middle line:84%
was run by a certain
Donald Rumsfeld the year

00:54:35.930 --> 00:54:39.740 align:middle line:84%
Ronald Reagan was elected
to the White House.

00:54:39.740 --> 00:54:44.570 align:middle line:84%
Between 1979 and 1982,
four FDA officials

00:54:44.570 --> 00:54:46.970 align:middle line:84%
who participated in
the approval process

00:54:46.970 --> 00:54:49.870 align:middle line:84%
took jobs linked to the
NutraSweet industry.

00:54:49.870 --> 00:54:56.025 align:middle line:84%
Paid acting FDA commissioner
Sherwin Gardner, Albert Kolbye,

00:54:56.025 --> 00:54:59.370 align:middle line:84%
who was associate
director for toxicology,

00:54:59.370 --> 00:55:03.030 align:middle line:84%
and Mike Taylor, an FDA lawyer
who represented the Bureau

00:55:03.030 --> 00:55:04.740 align:middle line:90%
before the board of inquiry.

00:55:04.740 --> 00:55:08.220 align:middle line:84%
What we have here is not a
legal conflict of interest,

00:55:08.220 --> 00:55:10.920 align:middle line:90%
but a revolving door.

00:55:10.920 --> 00:55:15.420 align:middle line:84%
What was the role of Donald
Rumsfeld in this approval

00:55:15.420 --> 00:55:17.640 align:middle line:90%
process?

00:55:17.640 --> 00:55:21.330 align:middle line:84%
Donald Rumsfeld
left the government

00:55:21.330 --> 00:55:24.550 align:middle line:84%
when Gerald Ford
lost the presidency.

00:55:24.550 --> 00:55:27.960 align:middle line:84%
He had been the head the
Secretary of Defense,

00:55:27.960 --> 00:55:30.000 align:middle line:90%
the chief defense minister.

00:55:30.000 --> 00:55:33.510 align:middle line:84%
And he went to work as the
president of the Searle drug

00:55:33.510 --> 00:55:34.590 align:middle line:90%
company.

00:55:34.590 --> 00:55:37.050 align:middle line:84%
Searle drug company was in
the congressional district

00:55:37.050 --> 00:55:39.450 align:middle line:84%
that he represented
when he was in Congress.

00:55:39.450 --> 00:55:42.540 align:middle line:84%
The Searle family is a very
prominent family, supported him

00:55:42.540 --> 00:55:44.790 align:middle line:90%
all through his political life.

00:55:44.790 --> 00:55:46.530 align:middle line:90%
He went to work for them.

00:55:46.530 --> 00:55:48.150 align:middle line:90%
Reagan is elected.

00:55:48.150 --> 00:55:51.270 align:middle line:84%
Donald Rumsfeld is on
the transition team

00:55:51.270 --> 00:55:54.210 align:middle line:84%
for Reagan\'s
presidency, and he is

00:55:54.210 --> 00:55:57.720 align:middle line:84%
the guy that manipulates who\'s
going to be FDA commissioner.

00:55:57.720 --> 00:56:01.050 align:middle line:84%
That new commissioner came
in, and then the process

00:56:01.050 --> 00:56:04.320 align:middle line:84%
started where he unraveled all
of the work of the scientists,

00:56:04.320 --> 00:56:07.280 align:middle line:84%
and then said
NutraSweet is safe.

00:56:07.280 --> 00:56:10.120 align:middle line:90%

00:56:10.120 --> 00:56:11.700 align:middle line:90%
I like to do well at things.

00:56:11.700 --> 00:56:13.230 align:middle line:84%
It\'s important to
me that if you\'re

00:56:13.230 --> 00:56:15.855 align:middle line:84%
given an assignment that you
try to do it the best you can.

00:56:15.855 --> 00:56:19.820 align:middle line:90%

00:56:19.820 --> 00:56:24.320 align:middle line:84%
And that\'s how aspartame flooded
the American market a few weeks

00:56:24.320 --> 00:56:27.560 align:middle line:90%
after Ronald Reagan\'s election.

00:56:27.560 --> 00:56:32.900 align:middle line:84%
The FDA\'s decision, as if by
magic, was copy pasted abroad.

00:56:32.900 --> 00:56:35.822 align:middle line:90%

00:56:35.822 --> 00:56:38.257 align:middle line:90%
I need a taste.

00:56:38.257 --> 00:56:41.670 align:middle line:90%
Oh, give me just a taste.

00:56:41.670 --> 00:56:46.564 align:middle line:84%
NutraSweet-- why so many
things taste so good.

00:56:46.564 --> 00:56:52.360 align:middle line:84%
I want to taste,
yeah, NutraSweet.

00:56:52.360 --> 00:56:55.360 align:middle line:84%
I was able to consult
the archives of the JECFA

00:56:55.360 --> 00:56:57.220 align:middle line:90%
at the WHO.

00:56:57.220 --> 00:57:01.900 align:middle line:84%
From 1975 to 1979,
the expert committee

00:57:01.900 --> 00:57:05.740 align:middle line:84%
refused to establish
an ADI for aspartame

00:57:05.740 --> 00:57:08.870 align:middle line:90%
as the FDA had at the same time.

00:57:08.870 --> 00:57:11.540 align:middle line:84%
For example, the
1978 report mentions

00:57:11.540 --> 00:57:14.030 align:middle line:84%
that, because of a
doubt as to the validity

00:57:14.030 --> 00:57:16.370 align:middle line:84%
of the original
data, the committee

00:57:16.370 --> 00:57:19.310 align:middle line:90%
has delayed its decision.

00:57:19.310 --> 00:57:22.430 align:middle line:84%
Change of tone in
1980 when the experts

00:57:22.430 --> 00:57:27.200 align:middle line:84%
decided to fix the ADI at
40 milligrams per kilogram.

00:57:27.200 --> 00:57:30.380 align:middle line:84%
In an annex to the report,
they added the studies

00:57:30.380 --> 00:57:33.320 align:middle line:84%
upon which they had
based their decision.

00:57:33.320 --> 00:57:37.220 align:middle line:84%
These are the three
Searle studies.

00:57:37.220 --> 00:57:40.950 align:middle line:84%
The ADI fixed by the
JECFA was adopted on trust

00:57:40.950 --> 00:57:44.690 align:middle line:84%
by the European countries
and in particular the EFSA,

00:57:44.690 --> 00:57:48.130 align:middle line:84%
the European Food
Safety Authority.

00:57:48.130 --> 00:57:51.010 align:middle line:90%
[SPEAKING FRENCH]

00:57:51.010 --> 00:59:09.950 align:middle line:90%

00:59:09.950 --> 00:59:12.350 align:middle line:84%
In the meantime,
the domino effect

00:59:12.350 --> 00:59:14.990 align:middle line:90%
was a godsend to the industry.

00:59:14.990 --> 00:59:18.230 align:middle line:84%
That\'s what Robert Shapiro\'s
testimony stipulated.

00:59:18.230 --> 00:59:20.450 align:middle line:84%
He was the president
of NutraSweet,

00:59:20.450 --> 00:59:22.910 align:middle line:84%
a subsidiary of
Searle, which was later

00:59:22.910 --> 00:59:26.150 align:middle line:90%
sold to Monsanto in 1985.

00:59:26.150 --> 00:59:28.220 align:middle line:84%
Who was going to verify
that his statements are

00:59:28.220 --> 00:59:29.660 align:middle line:90%
based on nothing?

00:59:29.660 --> 00:59:31.490 align:middle line:90%
Thank you, senator.

00:59:31.490 --> 00:59:33.650 align:middle line:84%
Those who attack the
safety of aspartame

00:59:33.650 --> 00:59:36.890 align:middle line:84%
are also attacking the
independent determinations

00:59:36.890 --> 00:59:41.000 align:middle line:84%
of the health and regulatory
authorities of the world.

00:59:41.000 --> 00:59:44.350 align:middle line:84%
The fact is, senator, that
every single authoritative

00:59:44.350 --> 00:59:48.160 align:middle line:84%
scientific, medical, and
regulatory body in the United

00:59:48.160 --> 00:59:50.830 align:middle line:84%
States and around the
world that has ever

00:59:50.830 --> 00:59:55.510 align:middle line:84%
examined the scientific evidence
on the safety of aspartame

00:59:55.510 --> 00:59:59.140 align:middle line:84%
has each independently
and separately arrived

00:59:59.140 --> 01:00:01.790 align:middle line:84%
at a single
identical conclusion,

01:00:01.790 --> 01:00:04.890 align:middle line:84%
and that is that
aspartame is safe.

01:00:04.890 --> 01:00:08.000 align:middle line:84%
FDA received many complaints
related to aspartame.

01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:09.530 align:middle line:84%
I have here a list,
which is public.

01:00:09.530 --> 01:00:15.200 align:middle line:84%
It\'s your list of
adverse effects.

01:00:15.200 --> 01:00:17.660 align:middle line:84%
I mean, a lot of
adverse effects--

01:00:17.660 --> 01:00:18.830 align:middle line:90%
92.

01:00:18.830 --> 01:00:19.790 align:middle line:90%
Many complaints.

01:00:19.790 --> 01:00:21.920 align:middle line:84%
Hundreds, thousands
of complaints.

01:00:21.920 --> 01:00:25.910 align:middle line:84%
Headache, dizziness,
convulsions, vomiting,

01:00:25.910 --> 01:00:28.040 align:middle line:90%
change in vision.

01:00:28.040 --> 01:52:41.494 align:middle line:90%

Related Films

Insecticides: A License to Kill

The insect apocalypse is here and pesticides are to blame.

The Strange Disappearance of the Bees

The latest science on the world-wide decline of bee colonies, implications,.and…

Main content