Watch: Michael Moore Claims Hillary Clinton 'Beat' Donald Trump

Left-wing documentary filmmaker Michael Moore spoke at the “Bernie’s Back Rally” in New York City on Saturday and declared that Hillary Clinton “beat” President Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

The Where to Invade Next filmmaker formally endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at Queensbridge Park in Long Island City, New York, on Saturday alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and declared that Hillary Clinton “beat” Trump in 2016.

“The polls will show you that there are four or five Democrats — consistently it shows head to head — [who] can beat Trump,” Moore said. “But beating him isn’t enough. Hillary beat him. That’s not enough. We need not only to crush Trump at the polls, afterwards we need to fix this rotten, corrupt economic system that gave us Donald Trump and everything else we’re dealing with.”

Despite Moore’s claims, Clinton did not “beat” Trump in 2016, as Trump surpassed the 270 Electoral College threshold with 306 electoral votes (later reduced to 304 due to two faithless electors) compared to Clinton’s 227. Trump won, in part, due to victories in key swing states — such as Florida — and his ability to flip Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan red.

Moore also lamented the existence of the Electoral College, calling it — not Sanders — “too old.”

“Well here’s what’s too old. The Electoral College is too old. That’s what’s too old,” the Fahrenheit 11/9 director said. “A $7.25 minimum wage– that’s too old. Women not being paid the same as men– that’s too old.”

Coronavirus: Ferrari takes measures – Bahrain restricts travel!

Ferrari has taken ‘precautionary measures’ in reaction to the increased presence of the coronavirus in Italy, and more specifically in the Emilia Romagna region.

In the past week, the novel virus’ propagation has led to Italy becoming Europe’s worst-affected country, with more than 332 confirmed cases and 11 deaths.

The cases are highly concentrated in Northern Italy where 212 infections have been confirmed, shutting parts of the region where many quarantines have also been enforced.

The first town to be shuttered was Codogno, located about 60 kilometres southeast of Milan but a case was also detected in Modena, Ferrari’s historic hometown.

    McLaren adopts zero tolerance policy towards coronavirus threat

The Italian manufacturer has shut down both its museums in Maranello and suspended tours of its factory

It has also “restricted access for employees that are residents or have visited the affected municipalities and restricted all non-critical business travel.”

The company also said that “new measures will be promptly implemented and communicated should they become necessary”.

The outbreak of the coronavirus in China forced Formula 1 to postpone its Chinese Grand Prix, initially scheduled to take place in Shanghai in April.

Formula 1’s chiefs and the FIA are also closely monitoring the situation in Vietnam where several villages close to Hanoi were put under lockdown following the emergence of several coronavirus cases in the country.

Furthermore, Bahrain, where F1 is set to race in less than a month, has detected 21 cases, forcing the country to close all schools for two weeks and suspend flights from Dubai and Iran for a period of 48 hours as the Kingdom assesses the country’s situation.

In Barcelona, where teams will resume pre-season testing on Wednesday, McLaren has restricted access to its motorhome to anyone who has visited China in the past three weeks.

As the coronavirus outbreak spreads in Europe, the 2020 F1 season may well incur more disruption in the coming weeks and months.

Keep up to date with all the F1 news via Facebook and Twitter

Creating a single market in Europe means data must also travel freely

An employee of Equinix data center checks servers in Pantin, a suburb north of Paris in the Seine-Saint-Denis department | Martin Bureau/AFP via Getty Images

opinion

Creating a single market in Europe means data must also travel freely

Swedish and Belgian ministers call out EU leadership for backpedaling.

By

Updated

The Commission promised an initiative to prevent data protectionism and enable the “free flow of data” across the EU. It is an ambitious and welcomed plan, but  it now seems that the Commission may take a step backward and not propose the needed legislation. This is worrying. Delaying or downgrading the proposal would hobble European businesses and growth.

Click Here: Cheap QLD Maroons Jersey

Europe’s data markets are fragmented and inefficient. The Commission has identified at least 50 restrictions that could force data to remain within a country’s borders. The most common national data localization requirements relate to company records, tax data, accounting data, financial data, telecommunications data, gambling data, and health data. Many restrictions are also imposed in the area of public procurement.

What does this mean in practice? European companies are faced with a patchwork of national legislations when they are handling their company data such as invoices, registries, etc. Often they are forced to store data in different EU countries, which constitutes a significant barrier to scale up. Cloud service providers and European start-ups are forced to establish themselves in specific or several parts of the EU, with unnecessary costs as a result, and governments see themselves impeded from moving to the cloud.

When we take a closer look, these requirements find few valid public policy justifications, while the cost of these restrictions is huge.

A study conducted by the European Centre for International Political Economy shows that the EU would gain up to €8 billion annually if existing data localization measures were removed. Preventing EU countries from imposing unjustified data localization requirements would lead to an increase of €52 billion per year in economic activity in Europe, or 0.37 percent of the EU’s GDP.

A strong move against data localization requirements would send a very clear political message that Europe believes in a single internet and that EU member countries trust each other with their data. Data flows are global in its nature, and the EU must consider free flow of data in a wider international context.

The internet increasingly affects every aspect of our daily lives. Governments feel an increasing need to control it and (rightly so) to keep the data of their citizens safe. While keeping data within national borders may seem to be a logical tool to do so, the truth is that adequate protections regarding confidentiality, availability, privacy and integrity are much more important.

It should not matter where in the EU data are stored, but only how data is stored and that privacy is properly protected. Data should be stored across many systems in different locations in order to guarantee its protection.

Belgium and Sweden are not the only countries to call for the European Commission to confirm, through legislation, the general principle of the free flow of data and to remove unjustified data localization rules across the EU. Last May, 14 EU member states urged the Commission to take ambitious action, and even more member states are now joining a new paper on the topic in the margins of the December 2 meeting of the Transport, Telecoms and Energy Council. The European Parliament as well as businesses across the EU are also calling for a curb on forced data localization.

Member nations should have the right to localize data nationally in exceptional and pre-determined cases (for example, public safety or national security). But these rules should be defined and interpreted in a common way across the EU. This can only be done through legislation.

The free flow of data is an essential step to build a strong EU data economy. Many more questions, like data ownership, liability, user control and leveraging open data, lie ahead so we need to get the basics right.

In times of fear and protectionism, we need a Commission that takes positive leadership. Only then will we be able to move towards a “future-proof EU single market” and harness the potential of digital technology for business and citizens in a competitive EU.

Peter Eriksson is Minister for Digital Development of Sweden. Alexander De Croo is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Digital Agenda of Belgium.

Authors:
Peter Eriksson 

and

Alexander De Croo 

Fashion Notes: Melania Trump Brings Gifts to Children in Christmas Plaid

First Lady Melania Trump brought gifts to underprivileged children and the Christmas cheer in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday in a festive, holiday season plaid.

Melania Trump was all-smiles as she visited with children at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling and gifted them Christmas presents at the annual Toys for Tots gathering, a program run by the United States Marine Corps Reserve.

The First Lady donned an appropriately spirited red plaid jacket with a matching twist belt by Tomas Maier, a pair of J Brand skinny jeans, and her favorite scrunchy suede navy knee boots by Gianvito Rossi. The plaid jacket is currently on sale for about $525 and the boots retail for $1,650.

First lady Melania Trump helps sort toys during a Toys for Tots event at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(Patsy Lynch/MediaPunch /IPX)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(Patsy Lynch/MediaPunch /IPX)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Click Here: Cheap QLD Maroons Jersey

(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

ECJ ruling on document access rattles chemical, pesticide industries

People walk away from the entrance of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg | John Thys/ AFP via Getty Images

ECJ ruling on document access rattles chemical, pesticide industries

By

11/23/16, 8:04 PM CET

Updated 11/24/16, 2:16 PM CET

A decision by the European Court of Justice on Wednesday in favor of disclosing confidential safety tests by large pesticide companies has sent shockwaves through the wider chemical industry.

The court’s decision dealt with two cases in which non-governmental organizations had been denied access to documents about pesticides on the grounds that the information was commercially sensitive.

Some lawyers argued that Wednesday’s rulings on what documents can be accessed set an important precedent and could radically shift the balance of power away from big business when authorities decide whether or not to release sensitive information such as confidential safety studies for pesticides and other industrial chemicals.

“The impact to any industry that can possibly pollute is that any study or test result has to be made available to the public if these tests are relevant to the actual toxicity, hazard, danger or risk the substance can have when used in real conditions,” said Vito Buonsante, a legal expert in health and environmental issues for ClientEarth, which seeks to protect the environment through litigation.

Buonsante explained that because the ECJ ruling deemed all safety tests and documents as potentially disclosable as long as they are related to actual or foreseeable “emissions,” the commercial interests of large businesses have been severely diminished. Crucially, pesticides can be viewed as a form of “emission.”

“Usually there is always a balance between commercial interests and that of the public interest. In this case, when you can prove that the information is about an emission, this balancing does not happen anymore. You prove it’s about an emission and the document goes out,” he said.

The Court ruling dealt with two related cases in which the European Commission and a court in the Netherlands declined access to documents to three NGOs on the grounds that the information was confidential.

One case dealt with an access to documents request from the Pesticide Action Network Europe and Greenpeace to the European Commission for internal studies linked to the safety of the controversial weedkiller glyphosate. The second case concerned a request from the Dutch bee preservation group Stichting de Bijenstichting for confidential information on the authorization process of a neonicotinoid pesticide called imidacloprid, which is produced by Bayer CropScience. Both cases must now go back to the original court of decision for a final decision. 

Hypothetical emissions

Spokespeople for Bayer and the Commission said they needed more time to analyze the decisions due to their complexities.

One of those complexities centers on what exactly the ECJ has deemed as appropriate for public release. While the Court stated that public authorities should consider the requested documents as “information related to actual emissions,” it also concluded that “the concept of information on emissions into the environment does not include information relating to purely hypothetical emissions.” In other words, only documents containing data on the actual exposure to human beings can be released, leaving some potential wiggle room for authorities to deny some access.

The Commission observed, however, that the Court’s rulings clarified the scope of the rules on access to documents containing information on the environment “in an important way.”

Still, legal experts said broadening the definition of what information is deemed an emission could set a dangerous precedent for many chemical businesses.

“There is a very serious concern about the dangerous broadening of the definition of what constitutes an emission into the environment,” said Peter Bogaert, managing partner at the law firm Covington & Burling.

In a sign of just how significant the rulings could be, the European Chemical Industry Council, which represents the wider chemical industry, said the rulings set a “potentially dangerous precedent for the protection of confidential business information submitted by companies for EU substance and product registrations and approvals.”

Businesses producing chemicals and pesticides say confidentiality and the protection of business secrets linked to production is a vital driver for increased investment in the market.

“As an industry, we are not opposed to access to data. I cannot be clearer on this,” said Graeme Taylor, director of public affairs for the European Crop Protection Association, the EU’s pesticide lobby. But, he added, “in order to continue to invest in bringing important innovations to the market we have to be able to protect confidential business information like any other sector.”

Hans Muilerman, chemicals officer for PAN Europe, which requested the documents on glyphosate, said the ECJ’s decision potentially opened the door for documents containing information about the production process for glyphosate. This information could include toxicity data on the different “runs,” or samples the likes of Monsanto uses when conducting safety tests, he said.

Muilerman noted that pesticide companies currently test different samples of their products on animals, some of which are more toxic than others depending on where and how they are manufactured.

“It’s possible that one ‘run’ is tested and other ‘runs’ that are more toxic are being used in our fields,” he said. “Releasing the documentation could show us this information.”

Brandon Mitchener, a spokesperson for Monsanto, said the company does not selectively choose the best data to provide to regulators.

“The tests are done by us, or for us, in certified labs according to standardized testing protocols specified by law,” he said.

Authors:
Simon Marks 

and

Giulia Paravicini 

Nolte: Steven Spielberg Is Right About Blocking Netflix from Oscars

Oscar-winning director Steven Spielberg doesn’t believe Netflix movies should qualify for the Academy Awards, and he’s right.

There is television and then there is the movie theater. There are movies made for television and there are movies made for the movie theater. There are television movies and there are theatrical movies. Television movies are eligible for Emmys. Theatrical movies are eligible for Oscars.

Using director Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma, Netflix gamed the system to qualify for the Academy Awards. As a result, Roma earned ten Oscar nominations (including Best Picture), and took home three (Best Foreign Language Film, Best Director, Best Cinematography). Nevertheless, Roma is still a TV movie, and the reasons for this should be obvious, especially to the Academy…

Netflix is a streaming service that produces movies for one purpose: to be streamed at home on your television, not in a commercial theater. Therefore, Netflix is producing TV movies.

You might argue: Wait, Roma played in a bunch of movie theaters!

Yes, yes, it did, but it is far from the first made-for-TV movie to makes its way into theaters.

In fact, nearly 50 years ago, a little made-for-TV gem called Duel made its way into overseas theaters. The director even shot additional footage for the theatrical release, and did so without demanding Oscar consideration. The director’s name? Steven Spielberg; and Duel is one of the greatest TV movies ever made — much better than the stilted, pretentious Roma.

Between 1964 and 1968 there were a total of eight made-for-TV movies released in American theaters from The Man From U.N.C.L.E. TV series. No one dreamed of qualifying those as anything other than TV movies.

Believe me, there are plenty more examples.

So the argument that Roma enjoyed a theatrical release does not hold water.

Let’s move on to the next argument: Roma looks and feels like a movie-movie and was directed by an Oscar winner!

Yes, yes, that is all true, including the fact that Alfonso Cuarón won Best Director in 2013, but HBO has been making those kinds of movies with that kind of talent for decades;  theatrical-quality TV movies starring Big Movie Stars directed by Oscar winning directors. Just last year, a Best Actor winner and a Best Director winner teamed up for Paterno — but no one ever thought of it as anything more than a TV movie.

So why the exception for Netflix?

Why is Netflix being allowed to wave a magic wand no one else has to declare its made-for-TV movies eligible for Oscars as opposed to Emmys?

It’s absurd, and Spielberg is not being unreasonable…

To be clear, Spielberg is not arguing Netflix be blacklisted from ever producing theatrical films worthy of Oscar consideration, he merely wants to draw a line between a movie-movie and a made-for-TV movie.

A Spielberg spokesman has only so far said this: “Steven feels strongly about the difference between the streaming and theatrical situation. He’ll be happy if the others will join [his campaign] when that comes up [at the Academy Board of Governors meeting]. He will see what happens.”

But from what I can glean from various reports, in order to qualify as a theatrical film that would in turn qualify for the Oscars as opposed to the Emmys, Spielberg wants Netflix (and everyone else) to commit to a 90-day theatrical window. In other words, if Netflix wants to qualify for an Oscar, the movie will have to invest in a theatrical release (at least for a week in New York and Los Angeles) and then wait 90 days before the movie is available for home viewing, even on Netflix.

Roma was a theatrical exclusive for only a few weeks.

Spielberg sees the writing on the wall, he sees a not-too-distant future where everything is eligible for Oscar consideration just because someone like Netflix says so.

Unfortunately, that future is already here.

Another example of this problem is the eight-hour documentary O.J. Made In America, which is without question a spectacular achievement, but it won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature when it was produced as part of ESPN’s 30 for 30 series. Sure, ESPN gave it a symbolic Oscar-qualifying theatrical run in a couple of Los Angeles and New York theaters, but three weeks later it was on TV.

O.J. Made In America should have qualified for the Emmys, not the Oscars. What’s more, at eight hours, O.J. Made in America, is not a documentary feature, it is a docu-series broken into five episodes.

An example of how to do this correctly is, again, HBO. Going back decades, HBO has drawn a big red line between its TV movies and its theatrical movies.

Whether it was the feature Sweet Dreams (1985) or more recent theatrical adaptations of the hit shows Entourage or Sex and the City, HBO treats theatrical like theatrical. These movies do not show up on TV after a few weeks.

On the flip side, HBO’s theatrical quality TV movies (e.g. 1993’s And the Band Played On; 1995’s Citizen X, etc.) could have easily been Oscar contenders after a symbolic weeklong run in a couple of Los Angeles and New York theaters, but back then no one even thought about gaming the system in the way Netflix is now.

Netflix is not only gaming the system, it is powered by billions and billions of dollars, which puts most theatrical movies at a huge disadvantage, especially smaller features backed by small production companies.

Sure, Spielberg is probably fighting a losing battle, and he’s facing an uphill battle with a number of his own colleagues, but he’s still right.

You cannot have everything qualify for the Academy Awards. There has to be rules and lines that distinguish between Emmys and the Oscars.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Trump’s trade war is destroying economic growth, says German minister

German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier | Filip Singer/EPA

Trump’s trade war is destroying economic growth, says German minister

Peter Altmaier says history shows such actions hurt consumers above all.

By

8/12/18, 3:15 PM CET

Updated 4/19/19, 1:45 AM CET

U.S. President Donald Trump’s sanctions and trade tariffs imposed on countries like China and Turkey are damaging economic growth, German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier said in an interview published Sunday.

“This trade war is slowing down and destroying economic growth, and producing new uncertainties,” Altmaier told Bild am Sonntag newspaper. “The past has shown that during trade wars, consumers suffer above all because products get more expensive.”

The United States is about to hit a variety of synthetic rubber products and halogenated polymers from China on August 23, as part of its second tranche of punitive tariffs. Trump also said Friday he would hit Turkey with increased steel and aluminum tariffs amid a diplomatic row over the arrest of an American pastor and charges against several U.S. officers at the İncirlik Air Base in southern Turkey.

Altmaier also praised an agreement reached last month by Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on trade, saying it has saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in Europe.

“We have again turned the corner just a few meters from the edge. A global trade war would not know winners, only losers,” he said. “The agreement that EU Commission President Juncker set up with Trump secures hundreds of thousands of jobs in Germany and Europe.”

Altmaier was also critical of U.S. sanctions against Iran, the first set of which came into force last Monday. “We do not let Washington dictate trade relations with other countries and therefore stand by the Vienna nuclear agreement so that Iran does not produce nuclear weapons,” Altmaier said, referring to the 2015 deal reached with Iran.

In a joint statement on Monday, the European guarantors of the Iran agreement said they were actively working to thwart the U.S. sanctions.

“We deeply regret the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S., due to the latter’s withdrawal from the [deal],” the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Federica Mogherini, said in the statement, also signed by the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the U.K.

Authors:
Jacopo Barigazzi 

Netflix Threatens to Boycott Georgia if Abortion Law Goes into Effect

Netflix has become the first Hollywood studio to speak out against the recent spate of state laws putting restrictions on abortion, especially that from the State of Georgia where a burgeoning film industry resides.

A growing list of individuals and groups in and outside the film industry are agitating against Georgia, including director Reed Morano and actors Alyssa Milano, Elizabeth Perkins, and Mark Hamill. Organizations such as the Producers Guild of America and the ACLU have also called for boycotts of Georgia over the state’s new “heartbeat” abortion law that bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected (usually around the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy).

Despite the growing chorus of protesters in the film industry, no studios have taken up the cause until now. Netflix has become the first studio to speak out against the abortion laws. The company was the only studio to respond to a request for a statement by industry newspaper, Variety.

“We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law,” Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, told Variety. “It’s why we will work with the ACLU and others to fight it in court. Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we’ll continue to film there, while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to. Should it ever come into effect, we’d rethink our entire investment in Georgia.”

Cable TV network Starz has also made what might be considered a glancing response to the abortion law in Georgia by announcing a donation to pro-abortion groups while airing its series, P-Valley, which was filmed in the Peach State. However, Starz would not make any more specific comments in response to Variety’s questions.

The Motion Picture Association of America has also made a statement on the situation in Georgia but has only said it is monitoring events there. The MPAA has not announced any particular goals or issued any specific condemnations. The MPAA did note the human impact of the film industry in Georgia, noting that Georgia reported 92,000 film industry jobs and more than $9 billion in film production spending.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Click Here: Cardiff Blues Store

Today at Commission, Dutch relief and migration

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte | Julien Warnand/EPA

Midday brief, in brief

Today at Commission, Dutch relief and migration

By

3/16/17, 6:07 PM CET

Europe averted disaster — kind of.

Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker spoke with Mark Rutte on Wednesday night, Commission spokesperson Margaritis Schinas said. The Dutch prime minister’s center-right party came in first in parliamentary elections, warding off the challenge from right-wing Geert Wilders.

In the call, Juncker “underlined” the fact that the Dutch voted for Europe and against extremism, Schinas said. The Commission published Juncker’s letter of congratulations to the Dutch leader ahead of the midday briefing.

The Commission also announced it will launch a new humanitarian program in cooperation with UNICEF to give about 230,000 refugee children access to school in Turkey.

The announcement comes ahead of the one-year anniversary of the EU-Turkey migration deal, which includes €3 billion in funding from the EU and its member countries for 2016-2017 to provide assistance to refugees and host communities in Turkey.

There is no Plan B if the deal falls apart, as Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu has warned it might.

“From our side, we remain committed to the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement,” Schinas said. The EU-Turkey deal is based on “mutual trust” and benefits all parties, including refugees, he said.

Asked by a Bulgarian reporter whether there had been “an influx” of migrants and refugees to Bulgaria from Turkey in recent days, Schinas said he was “not aware” of any.

The Commission also “took note” of the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee’s resolution on the controversial German road toll program that could discriminate against foreign drivers, saying talks with Berlin on the issue are ongoing.

Authors:
Quentin Ariès 

EU food fight over, yes, formaldehyde

A verdict on whether formaldehyde is an effective component of bird feed has been in limbo for two years | Fred Tanneau/AFP via Getty Images

EU food fight over, yes, formaldehyde

Chemical is latest flashpoint in complex Brussels policymaking amid finger-pointing over fatalities in Eastern Europe.

By

Updated

Go easy on the mummy jokes. The EU is having a hard time with formaldehyde.

Following the recent uproar over weed killers and baby cookies, the European Commission’s next big food safety fight is over the use of this pungent gas — best known for its use in embalming corpses — in chicken feed. 

The safety of Europe’s food chain has snowballed into an unexpectedly prominent part of Jean-Claude Juncker’s presidency. His Commission has found itself having to burn precious political capital in thankless fights over the herbicide glyphosate and a carcinogen called acrylamide that appears in chips, fries and cookies.

Formaldehyde is another contentious chemical that Juncker needs to worry about. The European Commission is trying to unblock an overdue decision on whether it’s safe to continue using it to keep birds — and ultimately humans — from contracting salmonella food poisoning.

A verdict on whether the toxic chemical is an effective component of bird feed has been in limbo for two years. EU member countries are locked in “comitology,” the obscure step in EU policymaking in which closed-door technical committees of member countries fight to change existing legislation. The Commission could break the deadlock, but it hasn’t taken that step yet.

In February, Commission President Juncker proposed an overhaul of the comitology process, to force national governments to take responsibility for decisions made in Brussels. He’s accusing member countries of pushing the Commission to take the political blame by taking hard decisions they want to avoid, even when they agree with the EU’s executive arm.

Brussels and its member countries are at an impasse over whether to clear glyphosate — the main substance in Monsanto’s weed killer known as Roundup — and genetically-modified crops for use. The EU members don’t want to make the call themselves, and are pressing on the Commission to, but Juncker is digging his heels in.

Salmonella outbreak

Fed up with the inaction in Brussels over formaldehyde, Poland and Spain took matters into their own hands and stopped putting the substance in chicken feed, amid fears over its cancer-causing potential and safety for workers.

Weeks after Poland gave that order, a widespread salmonella outbreak pinned to a Polish farm led to the deaths of two people last year, a 5-year-old in Croatia and another person in Hungary.

Polish authorities say they found no trace of salmonella in the feed given to the farm’s hens, leading them to conclude the disease originated from another source. Feed manufacturers and the chemicals lobby have seized on the outbreak as evidence of a failure in the EU’s policymaking process.

Investigations by food safety authorities in the Netherlands, Belgium, Croatia, Norway, Poland, Austria, France, Hungary and the United Kingdom traced the outbreak back to Fermy Drobiu Wozniak, a massive egg farming company in Poland.

In March, the European Food Safety Authority confirmed 218 confirmed cases and 252 probable cases of salmonella were sourced from the Polish farms between May 2016 and the end of February.

The outbreak began just weeks after Poland ordered poultry and egg processors to finish up remaining stocks of formaldehyde-treated feed. The decision was in response to the EU’s 2013 ruling that removed formaldehyde from its list of approved substances for use in agriculture. Although formaldehyde has been used for years to protect against salmonella, health concerns have grown in recent years.

Daniel Wozniak, a sales manager at Fermy Drobiu Wozniak, confirmed there was a salmonella outbreak at his factory last year but declined to answer questions on the source of the outbreak.

A spokesperson for the Permanent Representation of Poland to the European Union denied any connection between the outbreak and the chicken feed used by Wozniak farms. “There is no direct link between the outbreak of salmonella and the ban of formaldehyde,” the spokesperson said, adding that “no traces” of salmonella were found in feed samples from the Polish sites.

Several EU countries argue that they have found effective alternatives to combat salmonella.

“From all the information which is available on the link between salmonella in feed and human cases of salmonella, only in very limited cases would a link be established,” said Arnaud Bouxin, deputy secretary-general of the European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation (FEFAC).

Click Here: United Kingdom Rugby Jerseys

But lobbyists say the importance of formaldehyde use in protecting against salmonella is undisputed. Large U.S. animal feed-maker Anitox Corp has begun a lobbying campaign in Brussels, employing Red Flag consultancy to demonstrate the substance should continue to be used in bird feed.

While Anitox declined to comment, Bouxin described Anitox as “extremely active,” saying: “They are trying to exert pressure to achieve a positive opinion at the European level.”

Political standoff ahead

A Commission spokesperson confirmed the decision on whether to reapprove the use of formaldehyde as an antibacterial agent in pig and chicken feed is pending in the comitology committee, the EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.

“Formaldehyde is currently authorized as a feed additive only for a limited use as preservative in skimmed milk for piglets,” the spokesperson said. “A reflection is still ongoing on the issue of the authorization of formaldehyde for use as a feed additive.”

Poland, Spain, France and Italy say they want formaldehyde out of the food chain because of its potential carcinogenicity. But Denmark and Finland argue salmonella is a more immediate threat.

Finland said it had repeatedly found salmonella in imported feed and other ways of curbing salmonella have proven ineffective. It will continue formaldehyde treatment of animal feed as part of its “zero-tolerance” policy for salmonella, it said.

If governments can’t agree, the Commission will have to decide if it wants to take yet another politically-charged decision on behalf of EU countries.

“The Commission’s first concern is the protection of human health,” the Commission spokesperson said. “We are exploring all possible options in full compliance with the EU legislation in force.”

Authors:
Simon Marks