On 02/06/16 22:49, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 19:59:30 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 02/06/16 19:18, David Rance wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:26:30 Martin wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:03:54 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Latest from Commission he
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release...16-2011_en.htm

For those unaccustomed to Eurospeak, it says:

SNIP

It is in normal English. We don't need your interpretation.

Yes we do. It was an excellent précis.

David

Yes and no. What I think Les missed was the interesting comment
"minimise the use of the substance in public parks, public playgrounds
and gardens". Now I thought it had been decided that glyphosate was to
be *banned* from public use, and that decision had already been made. If
so, why is the word "minimised" used, rather than "stop"?

It isn't banned yet, but will be unless 100% of member states agree to allow it
before July 1st.

The phrase you mention was one of three recommendations to be made if the use is
approved to continue after July 1st.

Sorry - I'm a bit confused here. You mentioned in an earlier thread that
glyphosate had been banned in The Netherlands for non-professional use.
According to your comment, unless *all* MS agree to allow it, then it
will be banned throughout the EU. So is this effectively a negative
veto? If one MS doesn't want it, and the rest do, it is banned? And if
one MS wants it, and all the rest don't, it is banned? Looks like
one-sided democracy to me.

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman wrote:

Sorry - I'm a bit confused here. You mentioned in an earlier thread that
glyphosate had been banned in The Netherlands for non-professional use.
According to your comment, unless *all* MS agree to allow it, then it
will be banned throughout the EU. So is this effectively a negative
veto? If one MS doesn't want it, and the rest do, it is banned? And if
one MS wants it, and all the rest don't, it is banned? Looks like
one-sided democracy to me.

If you looked up the article by the Commissioner for Food Safety
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-2011_en.htm
you will see that the measure requires _qualified majority_ support.
If you look up "qualified majority"
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/qualified_majority.html
you will see that this means that 16 out of the 28 states in the EU
must support the measure, and that they must represent
at least 65% of the EU population.

That seems to me a perfectly rational and democratic way of deciding
on an issue like this.

I thought the Commissioner's statement was slightly misleading
in not stating that there is a difference of opinion
between the EU's ECHA (European Chemicals Agency)
and the UN/WHO's IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer).
The IARC believes that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic"
while the ECHA believes it is "unlikely to be carcinogenic".

Also the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) seems to support
the WHO position.

My non-expert view, having looked at the documentation on the subject,
is that the WHO's view is more likely to be correct,
as it is based on a number of statistical studies in Canada and the USA,
while the ECHA's view is slightly indirect,
being based on criticism of the statistical arguments in these studies.
The FDA is currently carrying out its own studies.




--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 03/06/16 10:56, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

Sorry - I'm a bit confused here. You mentioned in an earlier thread that
glyphosate had been banned in The Netherlands for non-professional use.
According to your comment, unless *all* MS agree to allow it, then it
will be banned throughout the EU. So is this effectively a negative
veto? If one MS doesn't want it, and the rest do, it is banned? And if
one MS wants it, and all the rest don't, it is banned? Looks like
one-sided democracy to me.

If you looked up the article by the Commissioner for Food Safety
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-2011_en.htm
you will see that the measure requires _qualified majority_ support.
If you look up "qualified majority"
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/qualified_majority.html
you will see that this means that 16 out of the 28 states in the EU
must support the measure, and that they must represent
at least 65% of the EU population.

Thanks for the link to the explanation.

That seems to me a perfectly rational and democratic way of deciding
on an issue like this.

I am afraid we disagree on what is rational and democratic. Why not 50%,
or 50% plus 1 vote? I don't see where the 55% comes from. and "the
proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 % of the
total EU population" seems a typical EU fudge of trying to satisfy the
main countries which pay for it. It reminds me of "the meek will inherit
the earth if that's all right with the rest of you".

I thought the Commissioner's statement was slightly misleading
in not stating that there is a difference of opinion
between the EU's ECHA (European Chemicals Agency)
and the UN/WHO's IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer).
The IARC believes that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic"
while the ECHA believes it is "unlikely to be carcinogenic".

Also the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) seems to support
the WHO position.

My non-expert view, having looked at the documentation on the subject,
is that the WHO's view is more likely to be correct,
as it is based on a number of statistical studies in Canada and the USA,
while the ECHA's view is slightly indirect,
being based on criticism of the statistical arguments in these studies.
The FDA is currently carrying out its own studies.

Well, we've disagreed on this before. The latest report from WHO (Joint
FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues on 9 - 13 May, issued 16 May)
seems to show WHO backing off
(www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf). See section 1.2.

"Overall, there is some evidence of a positive association between
glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL from the case-control studies and
the overall meta-analysis. However, it is notable that the only large
cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any
exposure level."

Reading between the lines, that suggests to me the "other" studies (are
those the ones you are referring to?) are of dubious quality and should
have little if any weight when coming to decisions on the
carcinogenicity of Glyphosate. .

The Australian Regulatory viewpoint is similar
(http://apvma.gov.au/node/13891), and they make reference to the FAO/WHO
report I mentioned above:
"The current assessment by the APVMA is that products containing
glyphosate are safe to use as per the label instructions."

Finally, as I asked in my 15 May post in the thread "Glyphosate again"
(ie before the FAO/WHO report was published), "I wonder why the IARC
monograph is taking so long to appear?"

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman wrote:

I am afraid we disagree on what is rational and democratic. Why not
50%, or 50% plus 1 vote? I don't see where the 55% comes from. and
"the proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 %
of the total EU population" seems a typical EU fudge of trying to
satisfy the main countries which pay for it.

You can have hours of fun with the EU voting simulator ...

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/voting-calculator/

Jeff Layman wrote:

If you looked up the article by the Commissioner for Food Safety
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-2011_en.htm
you will see that the measure requires _qualified majority_ support.
If you look up "qualified majority"
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/qualified_majority.html
you will see that this means that 16 out of the 28 states in the EU
must support the measure, and that they must represent
at least 65% of the EU population.

That seems to me a perfectly rational and democratic way of deciding
on an issue like this.

I am afraid we disagree on what is rational and democratic. Why not 50%,
or 50% plus 1 vote? I don't see where the 55% comes from. and "the
proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 % of the
total EU population" seems a typical EU fudge of trying to satisfy the
main countries which pay for it. It reminds me of "the meek will inherit
the earth if that's all right with the rest of you".

Your argument seems illogical to me.
If in fact the arrangement you favour of 50% + 1 vote were in operation
it would give the larger countries even more influence,
which you seem to think would be a bad thing.

I don't think qualified majority is an EU invention.
Many democratic countries that are divided into regions or sub-states
(eg Germany) have similar rules.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 04/06/16 12:09, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

If you looked up the article by the Commissioner for Food Safety
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-2011_en.htm
you will see that the measure requires _qualified majority_ support.
If you look up "qualified majority"
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/qualified_majority.html
you will see that this means that 16 out of the 28 states in the EU
must support the measure, and that they must represent
at least 65% of the EU population.

That seems to me a perfectly rational and democratic way of deciding
on an issue like this.

I am afraid we disagree on what is rational and democratic. Why not 50%,
or 50% plus 1 vote? I don't see where the 55% comes from. and "the
proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 % of the
total EU population" seems a typical EU fudge of trying to satisfy the
main countries which pay for it. It reminds me of "the meek will inherit
the earth if that's all right with the rest of you".

Your argument seems illogical to me.
If in fact the arrangement you favour of 50% + 1 vote were in operation
it would give the larger countries even more influence,
which you seem to think would be a bad thing.

I didn't say I was in favour or not - I simply said it seemed the EU was
trying to find a way to satisfy the main countries which pay for it. I
favour a simple majority (of those voting) as it is the most transparent
system.

I don't think qualified majority is an EU invention.
Many democratic countries that are divided into regions or sub-states
(eg Germany) have similar rules.

I searched on "qualified majority", but although there are many
explanations of how it works, and why it came about, I couldn't find a
succinct explanation of how the % figures were selected.

One webpage I found I thought was quite interesting:
http://www.michaelmunevar.com/website/How%20EU%20Qualified%20Majority%20Voting%20Works%2 0with%20examples

The examples provided, even those referring to a "blocking majority"
(does this still exist? The examples are from 2009) just appear to
emphasise the nonsense of the artificial systems proposed in trying to
come to a method of voting which tries to satisfy everyone and succeeds
in satisfying no one. A simple majority gives a clear result; it may not
satisfy everyone, but that is democracy.

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman wrote:

"the
proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 % of the
total EU population" seems a typical EU fudge of trying to satisfy the
main countries which pay for it. It reminds me of "the meek will inherit
the earth if that's all right with the rest of you".

To me, this implies that you think it would be wrong for the countries
which have large populations to determine policy.
Is that what you think, or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

Your argument seems illogical to me.
If in fact the arrangement you favour of 50% + 1 vote were in operation
it would give the larger countries even more influence,
which you seem to think would be a bad thing.

I didn't say I was in favour or not - I simply said it seemed the EU was
trying to find a way to satisfy the main countries which pay for it. I
favour a simple majority (of those voting) as it is the most transparent
system.

One webpage I found I thought was quite interesting:

http://www.michaelmunevar.com/website/How%20EU%20Qualified%20Majority%20Voting%20Works%2 0with%20examples

In fact, as this web-page points out, the aim of a qualified majority
is exactly the opposite of what you say - the aim is to prevent
a small number of large states combining to dominate the EU.

A simple majority gives a clear result; it may not
satisfy everyone, but that is democracy.

This may be simple, but the effect would be to bring about a situation
which is precisely what you imply you want to avoid.

Incidentally, the founding fathers of the US faced exactly the same problem.
They came up with a different solution, but the intention was the same -
a small number of states with large populations cannot dominate the rest.



--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 05/06/16 09:49, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

"the
proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 % of the
total EU population" seems a typical EU fudge of trying to satisfy the
main countries which pay for it. It reminds me of "the meek will inherit
the earth if that's all right with the rest of you".

To me, this implies that you think it would be wrong for the countries
which have large populations to determine policy.
Is that what you think, or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

As I said, It does not matter who determines policy provided it is a
simple majority. If this happens to favour the countries with the larger
populations, so be it. If the intention is ever greater union, the EU
should be moving towards a single community in which votes have equal
weight, no matter on whose behalf they are made.

Your argument seems illogical to me.
If in fact the arrangement you favour of 50% + 1 vote were in operation
it would give the larger countries even more influence,
which you seem to think would be a bad thing.

I didn't say I was in favour or not - I simply said it seemed the EU was
trying to find a way to satisfy the main countries which pay for it. I
favour a simple majority (of those voting) as it is the most transparent
system.

One webpage I found I thought was quite interesting:

http://www.michaelmunevar.com/website/How%20EU%20Qualified%20Majority%20Voting%20Works%2 0with%20examples

In fact, as this web-page points out, the aim of a qualified majority
is exactly the opposite of what you say - the aim is to prevent
a small number of large states combining to dominate the EU.

A simple majority gives a clear result; it may not
satisfy everyone, but that is democracy.

This may be simple, but the effect would be to bring about a situation
which is precisely what you imply you want to avoid.

Incidentally, the founding fathers of the US faced exactly the same problem.
They came up with a different solution, but the intention was the same -
a small number of states with large populations cannot dominate the rest.

I am in favour of one person one vote, with a simple majority winning.
That may favour larger population countries, but so what? If smaller
countries don't like it, they don't have to join the EU. That's
democracy in action. And, as we are currently seeing with the UK, larger
countries don't always like what the EU decides! And the Brexit decision
will be taken on a simple majority of votes - no artificial systems
biasing the decision one way or the other.

--

Jeff

Martin wrote:

So far only the Dutch have wanted to have a (partial) ban on Glyphosate.

Not true; lifting the ban (just for 18 months) failed to get
a qualified majority of EU states:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-eu-glyphosate-idUSKCN0YS0Y0
6 June 2016

"The EU executive had offered a 12- to 18-month extension to allow time for
further scientific study by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), in hopes
of allaying health concerns. Its earlier proposal to renew the glyphosate
license for up to 15 years had failed to win support in two meetings this
year.

The compromise proposal failed to win the qualified majority needed for
adoption, an EU official said, adding the European Commission will discuss
the issue at a meeting on Tuesday."

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Martin wrote:

ECHA should have the final say in safety of pesticides etc. not
politicians, who don't have the expertise to judge.

Why follow the ECHA rather than the WHO?
Have you looked at any ECHA reports?
They are not in the same league, in my view, as the IARC/WHO,
and they also seem to me to be more open to lobbying.

Incidentally, their views are not that far apart.
The IARC believes that glyphosate is "probably" carcinogenic,
while the ECHA believes it is "unlikely" to be carcinogenic.

Also the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) seems to support
the WHO position.

seems to? If that were true the FDA wouldn't be making their own studies.

Both the IARC and the FDA are continuing their studies of this issue.
That is the scientific method.
(Incidentally, the IARC has recently published a provisional report,
which seems to suggest, as has been pointed out,
a weakening of their view that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.)

The ECHA is not planning any further investigation as far as I know.
It is a different kind of organisation to the IARC or the FDA;
as far as I can see it is a group of scientists from different EU states
who meet from time to time and publish their views,
which are not based on any joint scientific research.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 03/06/16 10:25, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:38:51 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 02/06/16 22:49, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 19:59:30 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 02/06/16 19:18, David Rance wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:26:30 Martin wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:03:54 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Latest from Commission he
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release...16-2011_en.htm

For those unaccustomed to Eurospeak, it says:

SNIP

It is in normal English. We don't need your interpretation.

Yes we do. It was an excellent précis.

David

Yes and no. What I think Les missed was the interesting comment
"minimise the use of the substance in public parks, public playgrounds
and gardens". Now I thought it had been decided that glyphosate was to
be *banned* from public use, and that decision had already been made. If
so, why is the word "minimised" used, rather than "stop"?

It isn't banned yet, but will be unless 100% of member states agree to allow it
before July 1st.

I'm still puzzled by the use of "minimised". Maybe something lost in
translation?

The phrase you mention was one of three recommendations to be made if the use is
approved to continue after July 1st.

Sorry - I'm a bit confused here. You mentioned in an earlier thread that
glyphosate had been banned in The Netherlands for non-professional use.

Any country can ban herbicides without needing EU permission. However if there
is no scientific evidence to support a ban the EU can make a country lift a ban
as the EU did in the case of the Dutch banning copper based antifouling.

Ah, yes, you've mentioned that before.

According to your comment, unless *all* MS agree to allow it, then it
will be banned throughout the EU. So is this effectively a negative
veto? If one MS doesn't want it, and the rest do, it is banned? And if
one MS wants it, and all the rest don't, it is banned? Looks like
one-sided democracy to me.

"Indeed, under the EU law, the last word belongs to the ECHA (European Union's
Agency for Chemical Products), this is why the Commission proposes to ask ECHA
for its scientific assessment on the carcinogenicity of the glyphosate and to
extend the current approval of glyphosate until it receives ECHA's opinion.
Next Monday, Member States will therefore be asked to vote on such a measure.
Once again, this is a collective decision."

See my reply to Timothy Murphy.

--

Jeff