Corrupt Food Industry | Hidden Work | Dangerous additives | Documentary

(futuristic booming) (playful music) - [Narrator] Have you noticed? Whenever you see a commercial for ham on TV, it's often set in the countryside, with a nice family and a rustic backdrop. And the ham is always pink.

Very pink. And 100% natural, of course. - [Narrator] It looks so tasty it has your mouth watering on your couch.

Well, that's the point. (exciting music) But what if, behind this pretty pink, hid one of the biggest health scandals of our era? In 2015, the World Health Organization listed processed meats as carcinogenic for man.

We decided to investigate the ingredients used by the giants of the food industry. - It can induce DNA breaks, mutate cells into sort of pre-cancer cells. - [Narrator] We discovered that to impede or halt regulations on certain additives, food industry lobbies have been working in the shadows for decades.

- You have to understand that the industry is a money making business, so they're very risk averse. They're not gonna fund a study that is bad for their business. - [Narrator] At the heart of this strategy of influence are the scientists who collaborate.

- [Sandrine] Did the meat industry pay you for this? - I received some compensation for my time, as well of the others. - [Sandrine] How much?

- I am not going to say. - [Narrator] And the scientists who are targeted. - Basically were trying to shoot me down or discredit me.

That's what shoot down means, scientifically. - These efforts to go after the scientists, to discredit the scientists, is a key element of a much larger strategy to just gum up the entire policy-making process. - [Narrator] Between intimidation, lies, and manipulation, we will uncover proof of a worldwide strategy where hitting below the belt is allowed.

- [Man] Leave now! Get the fuck outta here! - [Narrator] Feeling hungry now?

Then it's time to eat. Tonight, you're our guests. To find out how ham is made, we visited a factory.

(electronic beeping) (bouncy jazz music) - [Narrator] Welcome to Fleury Michon, one of the market leaders in France, and one of the few to play the card of transparency. The ham on your supermarket shelves starts out like this, big lumps of pork meat. To add taste, a little vegetable stock.

It all goes into a ham-shaped mold and it's cooked. And the result, perfectly pink rounded slices. Have you grasped the basics?

Well let's rewind a little to see the detail that changes everything. To obtain this fine ham, there's another very important step. You have to inject the meat.

A machine, with a dozen syringes, injects a liquid into the lumps of pork meat. The liquid contains an essential additive. Factory manager Laurent Rouleau shows us.

These yellow sacks contain a mixture of salt and sodium nitrite, the additive E250. - [Narrator] In fact, he's telling us that the pretty pink of our ham isn't natural at all. It's thanks to sodium nitrite.

This additive fixes the pink of the meat during cooking. Otherwise, ham would be the color of roast pork. That's why food industrialists can't do without it, as a processed meats producer would confirm.

- [Narrator] Let's sum up, the ham's pink is unnatural, but without the pink, it would be impossible to sell. The big problem is that sodium nitrite is believed to be a danger to public health. The additive is suspected of playing a role in the development of colorectal cancer, one of the deadliest cancers in Europe.

The cause? A phenomenon that takes place during digestion. It's chemistry, but we'll make it simple.

You swallow a piece of cured meat. You think you're peacefully digesting it, but what you don't known is, the nitrite molecules are reacting with the meat proteins, transforming them into very dangerous substances, nitrosamines. (tense piano music) We went to the Netherlands to learn more about the effects of this chemical reaction on our health.

To the Faculty of Medicine of Maastricht University. This is where the toxicologist Professor Theo de Kok works. He's been interested in nitrites for years, and by extension, nitrosamines.

- Nitrosamines are known to induce damage in the large intestine. So it can induce DNA breaks, mutate cells into sort of pre-cancer cells. And that's of course, something that you want to prevent.

- [Narrator] Professor De Kok notably wanted to find out what happens inside the body when we don't eat processed meat and when we eat a lot of it. To do so, he conducted an experiment with human guinea pigs, like Arnaud. For 2 weeks, this student ate 300 grams of processed meat a day, the equivalent of 8 and a half sausages, or 7 slices of ham.

- After 15 days, we saw that the exposure to nitrosamines was considerably increased, so it was up to, between two and three-fold increase as compared to the levels that we measured at the start. - [Narrator] The researcher measured the impact on the organism of this chemical mutation of nitrites into nitrosamines. In his lab, he tested the fecal water of big processed meat eaters, like Arnaud.

- So what you see here is fecal water from four different individuals. - [Narrator] To see what happens inside the body, the researchers mixed this fecal water with human cells, the white deposit in the test-tube. Then they observed what happened to the cells.

- You see that, if you have no exposure, you see that everything is intact. So the material stays together. But if you are exposed to nitrosamines that induce breakages of the DNA, you see this comet tail appearing.

So you see that here, the damage is quite intensive. So the more damage you have, the more likely it is that a cell like this will eventually mutate into a pre-cancer type of cell. - [Sandrine] How long does it take for such a damage?

- Well, this damage can be induced relatively quickly. So in this essay, when we isolate the cells, and we only expose them for half an hour, and then you already see the breakage of these DNA strands. So that's how fast it can happen.

And it can also happen, not just in the lab here, but also in an intact human body. - [Narrator] And if we stopped using nitrites, then what? - That would make a difference of potentially several thousands of colorectal cancer that's in Europe every year.

- That's huge. - That's huge. Because colorectal cancer is a very frequent disease, already small changes in a cancer risk can have a big impact in the large population.

- [Narrator] Thousands fewer cancers and therefore potentially fewer deaths, just by suppressing nitrites. But the food industry has a sledgehammer argument for justifying the use of nitrites, it protects us from botulism. Botulism is a form of food poisoning caused by bacteria that affect our central nervous system and can be deadly.

Scary, right? But there's a glitch in their argument. (video rewinding) There are already companies which do produce processed meats without nitrites, and their customers are in fine form.

(funky bass music) If you happen to be in Copenhagen in Denmark, just after the Little Mermaid and the Quayside promenade, pop into a supermarket, like we did. There you'll find cured meats without nitrites. And for those whose Danish has gone a bit rusty, it's uden nitrit.

It's everywhere. You can easily recognize it by its color, more brownish than pretty pink. The best-known brand is produced 150 kilometers south of the capital, in Denmark's biggest organic processed meat plant, Hanegal.

(speaking in foreign language) The boss, a biochemist, started in nitrite-free cured meats 25 years ago. Since then, the Danish health authorities haven't registered a single case of botulism caused by processed meat. - We do not have problems with this bacteria.

I would say for the last 50 years, this has not been a written about topic in Western Europe. That was a problem in the meat industry 100 years ago, where things weren't as clean as they are, slaughter houses were not as clean as they are today. So no worry about bacteria, now we have to worry about additives that might be cancer producing.

And if they are not necessary for some very good reasons, we should not use them. - [Sandrine] For you, the cancer risk today is the main risk? - That's the main risk today, definitely.

And actually, it has been so for 30, 40 years. - [Sandrine] Why do producers still put nitrites in meat? - The main reason is that they are afraid that customers will not accept products which do not have the red color that they have been used to for many, many years.

- [Narrator] Hanegal is one of the few food industry companies to do without nitrites. (tense percussive music) And yet, experts have been ringing alarm bells for years. 25 years ago, a European Union health report already recommended reducing the amounts of nitrite used in processed meats.

In 1999, this report even put forward banning its use altogether. Despite the increasing number of studies, the European Commission still allows industrial food companies to add lots of nitrites to the products. So we went to ask the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, a former health minister in Lithuania, a few questions.

- [Sandrine] Why don't get the levels lower? I would like to guarantee you that it is of course in hands of institutions which are responsible to follow, to say and to present us final results. It always takes time and responsibility.

- [Narrator] For over an hour, the Commissioner attempted to pull the wool over our eyes, in spite of all the reports by experts which, for 25 years, have warned the authorities about the dangers of nitrites. - [Sandrine] All these studies, you don't think they're enough? - You know, all those studies are open.

But you see thanks to transparency, thanks to possibility to have them, to show to people that we are ready to follow, and to see and to do, and how to move as soon as possible. - [Sandrine] Transparency is good, but decisions are better. - Sorry, all decisions are in lines of procedures.

Can you imagine like that decision to make? If I will be king of the European Union, oh. But I am not king of European Union.

- [Sandrine] This story has been going on for so long. - No, no, no, sorry to say. Sorry, this study shows that all standards are in safety line.

- [Sandrine] In this case, why Europe lost against Denmark in the European Court of Justice in this nitrites story? - I don't know, it's contentious. I would like to read more information because I am not one who knows everything.

- [Narrator] So let's look at the facts, Mister Commissioner. Denmark wanted to limit the use of nitrites, the European Commission was against it, and in 2003, in court, the Danes won, in the name of the protection of public health. - I am very happy about European court decisions.

When European court decisions always show that public health is priority, it means that DG SANTE and the commissioner responsible. Public health is in better conditions. - [Narrator] And yet, since this court ruling, EU regulations are just as lax as ever.

- From my point of view, we must be more energetic asking industry to change their technology, reformulate forward, to follow figures, to keep on board public health priorities, not profit. Absolutely. But of course, it takes time.

- [Narrator] Time, perfect. That's just what the food industry wants and what it has built its strategy on for years. (devious music) Because when it comes to nitrites, industrialists have been waiting out the clock for 40 years.

40 years of scientific manipulation, blackmail, and intense lobbying, so the meat business can carry on bringing home the bacon. And it all begun on the other side of the Atlantic. If you think we're exaggerating, listen to this.

In the late 1970s, nitrite was almost banned in the United States, just after the publication of a large-scale study requested by the government. - A relationship between cancer and nitrite was proved, suggested? - No, proved, and a fairly strong one.

There were 2,000 rats involved in the study. It's a very extensive study done by a well-respected scientist. - [Narrator] The banning of nitrites was announced in the press, but the American Meat Institute would bring out its big guns.

In his office overlooking the capital, its president, Richard Lyng, spoke out. - Processed meats that contain nitrites are a big thing. The retail value of them about $12.

5 billion. About 2/3 of the hog production in the United States goes into cured meats. And it presents a problem for our industry and for the government.

We're hopeful that a solution can be found. - [Narrator] Armed with financial analysis, the American meat lobby forced the government to back down. The banning of nitrites would send pork prices plummeting and cause an apocalypse.

But it was a political event that would close the debate. (patriotic brass music) In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States, and guess who entered into government? Richard Lyng, the president of the American Meat Institute himself.

The idea of banning nitrite was forever buried. (devious music) The experiment-based study on 2,000 rats ended up in the trash can. And after that, the same fate would await every scientific publication calling nitrites into question.

If you're wondering how the interests of industry can systematically win against what's at stake in public health, the following will enlighten you. 15 years after the victory of Reagan and the meat industrialists, a new study shook America to the core. - If it's not one thing, it's another.

A study finds a link between hotdogs now and cancer. - [Narrator] Put yourself in the shoes of the average American Joe at the time. You and your family are eating hotdogs at the shopping mall or in the street just as usual.

The effect was immediate. In a matter of days, hotdog sales fell by 8%. And given the size of the American market, that represented millions of dollars less for the food industry.

The author of the hotdog study that caused sales to plummet was Susan Preston-Martin. She's now a retired scientist living near Los Angeles, in a residential suburban setting straight out of an American soap. After several tense months of talks, she agreed to see us.

But we had to insist right up until the last minute. The lady is very discreet. - [Sandrine] It's Sandrine Rigaud.

- What? - From French TV. - I don't know what you said.

- Mr. Preston Martin? - Yes.

- Yes, I'm Sandrine Rigaud, from French TV. - [Susan] Oh, gosh. - [Sandrine] Hello.

- [Susan] No. - [Narrator] With her discoveries on processed meats, the researcher was the victim of a number of attacks. But she agreed to look back at her work which showed a link between the excessive eating of hotdogs and certain rare cancers in children.

- How did you find the relationship? - Well, just the way we always did when we did case control studies. We started out with a group of children who had leukemia and compared them to a group of children who didn't have leukemia.

And we asked the mothers about what they fed the children. And sure enough, the kids with leukemia ate more hotdogs. - What did you think when you saw this strong relationship?

Because it was quite a strong relationship. - It was with hotdogs, I was a little bit surprised. And just reserved judgment, which is what epidemiologists do when they find something they don't expect.

- [Narrator] From that moment on, for the food industrialists, Susan Preston-Martin became public enemy number one. - The meat lobby, they definitely didn't like what we were doing. They were terribly upset and I could understand that, you know, their livelihood was making processed meats.

And they didn't want anything coming out saying that those were not good for you. Basically were trying to shoot me down, or discredit me. That's what shoot down means, scientifically.

- [Narrator] What we discovered went much farther. The scientist had never realized just whom she was dealing with. - [Narrator] America made the hotdog famous.

Oscar Mayer gave it diggity. ♪ Hot diggity, dog diggity ♪ - [Narrator] In the US, the undisputed champion of supermarket-sold hotdogs has always been Oscar Mayer. - [Narrator] America's number one.

♪ Hot diggity dog ♪ - [Narrator] A brand of the Kraft Foods group, a giant of the food industry. So far, no surprises. But what's less known is that at the time, and until 2007, Kraft was owned by Philip Morris, the world's second largest tobacco company.

A lobby which went as far as lies and manipulation to defend its own interests, notably in the big tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s. - You believe nicotine is not addictive? - I believe nicotine is not addictive, yes.

- I believe nicotine is not addictive. - [Narrator] Questioning proven scientific facts, the strategy worked perfectly for years with tobacco. So Philip Morris used it again to save Oscar Mayer's hotdogs.

(tense guitar music) To understand how the multinational manipulated science to defend its investments in cured meats, we headed to Northern California. To San Francisco. This university library holds what are commonly known as the Tobacco Documents, millions of internal tobacco industry documents.

Our guide, Stanton Glantz, has spent his life unraveling the cigarette makers' strategies. - Carton four. - [Narrator] He particularly remembers one phrase used by a lobbyist in 1969.

- Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. - [Narrator] For him, everything is summed up in one word, doubt.

And it was exactly like that, by creating doubt, that Philip Morris set out to discredit Dr Preston-Martin's study on processed meat and cancer in children. The proof is there, in the vast database of the Tobacco Documents. By typing Susan Preston-Martin, you get hundreds of hits.

And all in the Philip Morris file. The researcher's name crops up regularly in the titles of memos, letters, and internal reports. The multinational believed her study on hotdogs would re-open the debate surrounding nitrites from the 1970s.

So it paid scientists to go through her work with a fine-tooth comb in order to find any weak points. Even her contracts and grant papers passed under the microscope. Basically, anything that could be used against her and weaken her in the eyes of the government and the press.

Stanton Glantz only learned of this case through the documents we showed him. - The approaches that they used to attack the person doing the research on linking cured meats with cancer were the standard things they do. One is to go through her work with a fine-tooth comb and find every little thing they could possibly complain about.

And because the issues tend to be fairly technical, if you're a politician, if you're a reporter, unless you're a specialized reporter, all you hear is well, this person said there was something bad, and this other person said that they didn't know what they were talking about. And so these efforts to go after the scientist and to discredit the scientist is a key element of a much larger strategy to just gum up the entire policy-making process to the point where nothing happens. That translates into hundreds of billions of dollars of sales and profits for them.

So the whole game is just to slow down. - [Narrator] In the documents on Dr Preston-Martin, other even more Machiavellian scenarios were studied. Here, it was suggested that talks be held with the scientist.

And here, a proposed seminar, in order to lure her. The aim? To influence her and even shape the conclusions of her future studies.

The common point of these documents? They all come from the same lobbying firm, Multinational Business Services, Inc, already hired by Philip Morris to contest the effects of passive smoking on health and headed by a certain Jim Tozzi, a master of influence. (rock guitar music) Amazingly, in Washington, the heart of American power, this lobbyist is still well-established.

As he never answered our requests for an interview, we went to see him without an appointment, with our documents in hand and a hidden camera. (doorbell rings) - Hi? - Hi.

- [Sandrine] Hello, I'm looking for a Mr Jim Tozzi. - Yes, he works here. Who are you with?

- [Sandrine] I'm a French journalist. I'm working for France 2 and I'm working on the lobbying. - Do you have an appointment?

- [Sandrine] No, no, I was just looking for him because I called from France, but he never answered. - Just step inside, please. - [Sandrine] Yes, thank you.

- [Bruce] He's not here now. - [Narrator] The good news, American lobbyists can be welcoming. We even managed to have Jim Tozzi on his cell phone.

- Here, please, come right in here please. Jim, can you hear me? - [Jim] I hear you, yeah.

- [Sandrine] I wanted to ask you some questions about Susan Preston Martin. - [Jim] No, I don't even know the lady. How did you get my name?

I haven't read her works or anything. - [Sandrine] Because you have set up a strategy to discredit her work for Oscar Mayer. So I wanted to know more about this.

- [Jim] Bruce, can you? - [Bruce] What? Excuse me?

I have no idea what she's talking about. - [Jim] But who is this press lady? Which newspaper does she work?

- [Bruce] I have no idea who you're working for, so I'm going to ask you to leave. No, I'm gonna have to ask you to leave. - [Sandrine] You have seen my passport.

I'm just asking for an interview. - [Bruce] Look, I understand, you have a lovely accent-- - [Narrator] If you liked the welcoming lobbyist, you'll love the angry one. - [Bruce] I am asking, you two have no appointment, now please leave, now.

Do I need to? Leave! - [Man] We can leave if you want.

- [Bruce] Yes, please, leave! I am ordering you out. - [Sandrine] Okay-- - [Bruce] Leave now!

Out! Get the fuck outta here! Do you understand?

Get the fuck out. Now get the flying fuck outta here and do not come back! Thank you.

- [Narrator] Pity it had to end like that. In the end, Mr Tozzi did a great job. Well, at least for the industrialists.

Back then, his anti-Preston-Martin arguments were brought into the media spotlight by this health journalist on a major national TV channel a few days after the publication of the famous study. - Let's get back to our hotdog story. Remember, they asked the people, "Did you eat a hotdog?

" They didn't ask them, "Did you put it in a bun? "Did you put ketchup on it? "Did you put mustard on it?

" Now you might be saying who really cares one way or the other, but that's important because it may be that it's not the hotdog at all that's causing this increased risk of cancer. Maybe it's the bun? Maybe it's the ketchup?

Maybe it's the mustard? So you have to be careful when you read these studies not to say, "Oh, this causes this. " - [Narrator] The powers-that-be didn't go any farther.

The 1970s nitrites file, which could have resurfaced, remained locked away. You're probably wondering what Susan Preston-Martin thinks, the woman targeted by the lobby. We showed her the documents and what upset her the most was seeing that fellow scientists had played along with the industrialists.

- These professors will get paid a huge amount to do review by, in this case, probably the American Meat Institute. I mean, thousands and thousands of dollars. They probably get more from doing this kind of thing than they do from their regular jobs.

- Seeing your name like this, in all these documents? - My goodness, I gave a lotta people a lotta work. (laughs) - [Sandrine] Were you aware of this?

- Well, I was aware that the processed meat community was concerned. But not aware of all the extent of this. - [Narrator] 20 years on and she had turned the page.

- Not of interest anymore. That's how the public awareness of science goes. It's of interest and then it's not of interest.

- [Sandrine] So you mean you did all that work, but today? - But it doesn't matter. I mean, it's still in the literature and it may influence people in future, and it has influenced people in the past, and that's fine.

(bouncy violin music) - [Narrator] But another scientist involved in the case has enjoyed a much more flourishing career. A scientist paid by the American Meat Institute to shoot down Susan Preston-Martin's work, David Klurfeld. Today, David Klurfeld is head of the US Government's nutrition program, and he's invited all over the world for scientific conferences where he gives his expert's point of view.

Totally independently. - I'd like to introduce the reasons why I think meat is an important component of a healthy diet. Spend just a very brief amount of time on that.

- [Narrator] On that day he was in France, speaking to scientists from around the world about meat and the link between processed meat and cancer, in order to denounce, backed up by PowerPoint, the climate of fear, panic, and even hysteria. And we know, because we were there. It was right at the start of our investigation, when we barely knew about nitrites and had the need of enlightened specialists to help us.

- So there are new reviews published this year that say nitrite is not harmful, and others that say it is harmful. I don't think anybody really knows definitively what the answer is. - [Narrator] A few months after this handshake, when we had learned more about the industry of doubt, bells started ringing.

So we took advantage of our trip to America to ask him for another interview. Only this time, with a lot more cards up our sleeve. - [Sandrine] Do you remember being paid by the American Meat Institute?

- No. - [Sandrine] Never? - No.

- I was interested in a scientist called Susan Preston-Martin. - Yes. - [Sandrine] Do you know her?

- I know who she is, I do not know her personally. - Do you remember writing a paper on her? - Yes.

- [Sandrine] For the American Meat Institute? - No. - I found this, it was prepared for the American Meat Institute.

- Okay. This is something different, yes. This was done 20 years ago, roughly, so I had forgotten about that.

- [Sandrine] Do you remember how much you were paid for this evaluation? - No, I do not. As I said, it was 20 or 25 years ago.

- [Sandrine] You didn't know when you were working for the American Meat Institute that Philip Morris was owning Oscar Mayer? - I'm not gonna say yes or no at this point in time because it's more than 20 years ago. - Did you know that the tobacco strategy motto was doubt is our product?

- No, I never heard that. - No? - No.

- Doubt was your product too. - That was not my intent. My intent was to do an evaluation.

If I had read these papers and found that there were not shortcomings in the papers, that there were not deficiencies in the papers, I don't think I would have criticized them. - But don't you think that your point of view would be stronger and your arguments stronger if I hadn't found that you had been once paid by the American Meat Institute? - No, I don't think that would change, it wouldn't change my point of view.

It might change your point of view that you tend to not believe what I'm saying because 25 years ago I got some amount of money that I don't remember. - [Narrator] Ah, we're making progress. He can't remember how much, but he does remember getting paid.

- But you have to understand that the industry is a money making business, so they're very risk averse. They would not fund a study that someone proposed to them that eating hotdogs increases the risk of childhood cancer. Why would they fund that?

They would only fund something that says, proposes that childhood cancer is prevented by eating more hotdogs, or there's no relationship. You know, they're not gonna fund a study that is bad for their business. - [Narrator] Well, at least he's honest.

Much of the meat industry's lobbying depends on collaboration with paid scientists. And that's still how things work. (rock guitar music) During a conference on processed meats and cancer in Lyon, a French scientist confirmed it.

Denis Corpet is a reference on the subject, an internationally renowned expert. He speaks and acts casually and doesn't balk at telling us how things work at scientific events. (eerie digital music) - [Narrator] A few days later, Professor Corpet sent us some names and photos of scientists he suspects of being close to the food industry.

Among them, two Americans he came across at a conference on meat and cancer, Andrew Milkowski and Nathan Bryan. As we checked out these scientists' profiles, we discovered a document which should certainly never have been on the web, an internal report issued by the American Meat Institute. It lays out the strategy for influencing the decisions of high-profile organizations.

This organization is the IARC, the International Agency for Research on Cancer. This institution, based in Lyon, France, is the worldwide reference on cancer. In 2006, IARC scientists classified nitrites in the probably carcinogenic category of products, Group 2A.

And that was bad for business. So lobbyists are fighting to have this classification changed. Page 64 of the document.

Change in IARC nitrite/nitrate classification from 2A to 2B, or possibly carcinogenic products. The strategy has a name, IARC Challenge. It notably involves the two scientists we were interested in, Andrew Milkowski and Nathan Bryan.

(country harmonica music) Armed with our brand-new file, it was time to set off to meet the meat sector's heavyweights. Welcome to Nashville, Tennessee, the capital of country music and notably the hometown of Johnny Cash. It's here that the American Meat Institute is holding its annual conference.

In this huge building, to be precise. The meat industry in the US is very, very big business. All of the world's biggest players are here.

Smithfield, number one in pork with a turnover of $14 billion a year. Cargill, the giant with $33 billion a year in food alone. And Tyson, the all-divisions record holder.

- This year we'll make, with all of our divisions, between beef, pork, poultry, and prepared, between 37 billion and $40 billion in revenue. - [Sandrine] So it's a small company. - Very small company, (speaking in foreign language).

- [Narrator] We checked, it's over $41 billion. After half an hour, we spot a face in the crowd that rings a bell. That woman there, tasting nibbles at every stand.

That's right, page 92 of the IARC Challenge document. Here, with short hair, the American Meat Institute's Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Janet Riley. - [Sandrine] Excuse me, please.

Sorry, hello, are you Janet Riley? - I am. - Yes, hello, I'm Sandrine Rigaud.

I'm working for France 2 on processed meat and cancer, and I have a question about a document I found. It is this document, do you know it? - I'm sorry, who are you with?

- I'm working for France 2. - Okay, I don't see you registered here. - [Sandrine] No, no, actually, I wasn't registered, but I have some important questions.

- Could you give me your business card? - Yes, of course, I have my journalist card. - Let's step outside.

- Just a question, I wanted to know what do you know about the IARC Challenge? - You know what-- - [Sandrine] The IARC Challenge here? - Could you turn off the camera until I know what I'm doing?

- But it's about nitrite and cancer-- - Can I have this? Thank you. - No, no, this is mine, sorry.

And I wanted to know-- - [Narrator] Okay, so much for our interview. - Why are you, is he with you? Why are you recording?

- [Narrator] Having been escorted outside. - This is my press card. - Okay.

- [Narrator] And been ordered to show ID, we try one last time. - It's France 2. It looks like what tobacco industry did for decades.

- That's your opinion. That's your opinion. What we're doing is providing science-based, peer-reviewed evidence that our products are safe.

And that's all I'm gonna say right now. - But are you paying those scientists-- - And you know what, I know you've got that camera rolling, don't you? - [Narrator] Luckily, for such cases, we always have a plan B.

On the list of IARC Challenge scientists, there was one who agreed to see us. The first on the list, Andrew Milkowski. (playful music) We head to Madison, Wisconsin.

This city in the north of the United States is home to Andrew Milkowski and the company of hotdog king, Oscar Mayer, who we came across in the Preston-Martin case. - [Narrator] America's number one. - [Narrator] The scientist worked for this company for 30 years.

He now teaches at the university. But he doesn't hide his proximity to the American meat lobby. Presented with our IARC Challenge documents, he acknowledges everything, or almost.

- [Sandrine] So did the meat industry pay you for this? - I received some compensation for my time, as well as the others. - [Sandrine] How much?

- I am not going to say. - [Sandrine] I don't know, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars? - Small amounts.

- [Sandrine] Small amounts? Can we have an idea? - No.

- [Sandrine] No? Defending nitrites seems to be a very big thing for industry. - Looking for a substitute has been attempted and was a total failure.

Something as chemically simple as nitrite and as unique as nitrite having a substitute has not been possible to anyone's ability. - [Sandrine] But if there is a small risk of getting cancer, don't you think it's important to try to find a solution? - That is where we disagree, because I do not believe that that risk is true.

- [Sandrine] You think there is no risk at all? - I think the risk is unquantifiable and unknown, if it indeed exists. - [Narrator] On hearing that, we pulled this expression.

So for Andrew Milkowski, the colorectal cancer, the hundreds of studies on the dangers of nitrites, none of it exists. Off you go, nothing to do with it. (funky guitar music) In the United States, it's thanks to scientists like Milkowski that the meat industry has been able to cut another notch in its belt, surprisingly in the health-conscious state of California.

This imposing building is home to the state cabinet-level California Environmental Protection Agency. We have an appointment with Sam Delson, Deputy Director for External and Legislative Affairs. He'll show us a document that doesn't exist in any other American state.

- Hello Michelle, long time no see. - [Michelle] Hi Sam. - [Sandrine] Hello, Sandrine.

So this is the list? - Yes, of all the agents-- - [Narrator] It's a list of substances judged dangerous to man by the State of California. To do business here, manufacturers are banned from using these substances or they are obliged to warn consumers.

And it's very restrictive because there are over 800 products on the list. - So a good example of that would be tobacco smoke. We talk about lead.

There's other things like benzene, that would be something we have common in things like exhaust. Then here we have aspirin. - [Sandrine] You have aspirin?

- Aspirin, yeah. It's a special note, especially for pregnant women. Oh, here is kind of an odd one, but you know, things like bracken fern.

If you wanna this, go for it, but be aware that you maybe don't wanna eat it every single day. - [Sandrine] So we don't find nitrite? - [Sam] Nitrite is not on the list.

- [Narrator] It's been years since nitrites have been targeted, but procedures have never been seen through. - When we believe a chemical meets the criteria for listing, we post what's known as a Notice of Intent to List and that triggers a period in which people can submit public comments on whether it does or does not meet the criteria. We review the comments before making a final decision to complete the listing.

- [Narrator] Regarding nitrites, here are the comments that swung the scales. Of the seven contributions, six come from food industry lobbyists. And with 31 pages, the winner is?

Andrew Milkowski. - [Narrator] Before the interview, we show Sam Delson all our documents on Milkowski, the IARC Challenge and the attempts at influence. Faced with an avalanche of proof gathered during months of investigation, he ends up taking out his cell phone to take photos.

However, in answering our questions, he seems less inspired. - It's their business if they think that they can influence a decision beyond the science, but we let the science do the talking. - [Sandrine] Do you think it might happen that sometimes you are manipulated by the industries?

- We do our best to make decisions based solely on the science, regardless of whatever pressure or attempts at persuasion may be made by any outside group. - [Sandrine] Okay. - [Narrator] California will re-examine the dangers of nitrites, but not before next year.

For the lobby, it's a mini-victory. Time gained and profits not lost. In Europe, a new study on nitrites was expected in December 2015.

Almost a year later, it still has not been published.