EFSA: Food safety – politics and science simply cannot mix - by Martin Banks.

Trying his best to sound non-partisan, the former president pointed out that the waves of refugees coming to Europe could be linked to conflicts caused by food shortages brought on by climate change. Which is why, Obama argues “[We need] better seeds, better storage, crops that grow with less water, crops that grow in harsher climates,” especially since “I let the science determine my attitudes about fFood production and new technologies… It’s okay for us to be cautious about how we approach these new technologies but I don’t think we can be close-minded to it.”

President Obama’s speech comes at a crucial time, as the safety of the food chain has come under the spotlight again in Europe, raising profound questions about the interactions between science, politics and new technologies, interactions that can be so toxic that they actually yield results that are harmful to consumers.

Just look at the wrangling currently unfolding over formaldehyde, a naturally occurring compound commonly used to keep fowl (and humans) from contracting food poisoning. The European Commission is having a hard time re-approving the use of the substance as a feed additive due to strong opposition from activists and certain member states.

The deadlock over formaldehyde shouldn’t have happened: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that the compound does not cause cancer could be authorized as a feed additive as long as worker protection measures were taken.  In 2014, the agency concluded that “there is no health risk for consumers exposed to the substance through the food chain.”  Its conclusions are in line with the world’s leading scientific bodies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Even so, the conclusions of the widely-respected EU agency have been called into question by, among others, the Health, and Environment Alliance (HEAL), a Brussels-based NGO, which managed to persuade Poland and Spain to take unilateral action and stop putting the substance in chicken feed.

The consequences were quick to follow. Weeks after Poland gave its order, a widespread salmonella outbreak – traced to a Polish farm – led to the deaths of two people, a 5-year-old in Croatia and another person in Hungary. Soon afterwards, EFSA reported that 218 confirmed cases and 252 probable cases of salmonella sourced from Polish farms were recorded between May 2016 and the end of February this year.

The formaldehyde debate shows the serious health repercussions that happen when science and politics clash. Another good example is that of the herbicide glyphosate. Originally marketed under the trade name Roundup, glyphosate accounts for about 25 per cent of the global herbicide market. In the EU, glyphosate-based herbicides are used for weed control for a wide range of crops including cereals, oilseed rape, maize, beans and sugar beet. Several European countries, including Germany, use glyphosate herbicides on almost half of their total crop area.

However, despite the fact that EFSA, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the EPA, a joint WHO/FAO committee and a swathe of other regulators concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic, a barrage of criticism seeking to discredit these institutions’ competence as scientific bodies followed. At the forefront of the attack on EFSA were the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and Italy’s Ramazzini Institute, which both continued to actively promote the alleged glyphosate-cancer link.

Read more: #EFSA: Food safety – politics and science simply cannot mix : EU Reporter

Middle East: Obama’s Syria Policy: The Illusion of US Power in the Middle East - Gareth Porter

The U.S.-Russian ceasefire agreement has collapsed and the the massive Russian bombing campaign in Aleppo has escalated. As a result, the frustration of hawks in Washington over the failure of the Obama administration to use military power in Syria has risen to new heights.

But it is the Obama administration’s role in Syria over the past five years that has led to its present inability to do anything about the Russian military escalation in Aleppo.

The problem is that the administration has pursued policy objectives that it lacked the means to achieve. When Obama called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down in September 2011, the administration believed, incredibly, that he would do so of his own accord.

As former Hillary Clinton aide and Pentagon official, Derek Chollet, reveals in his new book, The Long Game, “Early in the crisis, most officials believed Assad lacked the necessary cunning and fortitude to stay in power.”

Administration policymakers began using the phrase “managed transition” in regard to U.S. policy toward the government, according to Chollet.

The phrase perfectly reflected the vaulting ambitions of policymakers who were eager to participate in a regime change. They saw this regime change as a big win for the United States and Israel and a big loss for Iran.

Not a shred of evidence has ever surfaced suggesting that the US has done anything to pressure its allies to cut off the channels of arms that were strengthening the al-Qaeda-linked militant group, al-Nusra Front.

As a result, the Sunni arms-to-jihadists strategy and the U.S. support for “moderates” were two parts of a broader political-diplomatic strategy of pressure on Assad to step down.

As former U.S. ambassador, Robert Ford observed in February 2015, “For a long time the administration had “looked the other way” while the U.S.- supported forces were coordinating with Nusra Front.

Read more: Obama’s Syria Policy: The Illusion of US Power in the Middle East - The Globalist

IRAN: Obama's Iran deal may well survive in US Congress - by Eric Werner and David Porter

The fiercely contested Iran nuclear deal will likely survive in the U.S. Congress despite unified Republican opposition and some Democratic defections, the top Senate Republican says. That would mean a major foreign policy win for President Barack Obama.

Obama has "a great likelihood of success," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said this week — giving public voice to what other Republicans have acknowledged in private. "I hope we can defeat it, but the procedure is obviously stacked in the president's favor."

Indeed, even as Congress' August recess has hardened Republicans' opposition to the deal on Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail, reality is setting in: They probably can't stop it. Significant Democratic defections from Obama would be required in both chambers of Congress, and even with opponents mounting a strenuous lobbying campaign in key congressional districts, such a prospect looks remote.

That means that even with Obama firmly nearing the end of his term and his Republican opponents in control of Congress and aiming for the White House, the president is on the verge of a legacy-defining victory on a pact that he and his supporters say will keep the world safe from Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Read more: Obama's Iran deal may well survive in US Congress - Yahoo News

BREXIT: Opinion: On UK ′Brexit,′ Obama is thinking US - not EU

The UK has to stay in the EU, Barack Obama says. Only then will it be able to continue to play a role on the international stage. More than anything, he has US interests in mind, Gero Schliess writes in Washington.

Some observers may have rubbed their eyes in disbelief: For the longest time, the Americans had gone out of their way to avoid EU matters. Yet, suddenly US President Barack Obama (right in photo) is concerned about the unity of Europe, urgently advising the British that they should not turn their backs on the "Group of 28."

 It remains to be seen whether Obama has done himself any favors with his unusually public plea. Euroskeptics in Britain have already said they will not tolerate his meddling.

The president has repeatedly stated that he cannot imagine a European Union without Britain. However, he has never expressed himself so directly in public. Has Obama become a convinced European? Has he come to appreciate a strong and unified Europe in light of the increasing gravity of global crises? That is only part of the truth.

The rest is that he is concerned with US interests.

Read more: Opinion: On UK ′Brexit,′ Obama is thinking US - not EU | Europe | DW.COM | 25.07.2015

US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror - BBC News

The United States has removed Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The move eliminates a major obstacle toward restoring diplomatic ties. The change allows Cuba to conduct banking in the United States, among other activities.

President Barack Obama announced a historic thaw with Cuba in December, but the US trade embargo against the country remains, and may only be ended by Congress.

The removal has been one of Cuba's key demands, as leaders from both countries have repeatedly met to negotiate the details of restoring diplomatic relations, including the opening of embassies in Washington and Havana.

The action comes as signs of difficulty were seen in recent talks between US and Cuban diplomats.

Read more: US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror - BBC News

Mexico - NAFTA: The "Three Caballeros" meet In Mexico: "Poor Results, No Deals and Many Promisses"

NAFTA Showtime: Stephen Harper, Enrique Peña Nieto, and Barrack Obama

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation noted: "Jean Chretien famously pronounced his last G8 summit as prime minister a success. When asked why, he replied, "Because it could have been a disaster.'
'
That same logic could be applied to this past weeks meeting of the three North American leaders in Toluca, Mexico.

Even though the" three Caballeros" called NAFTA a great success - looking at the results - tells another story. .

The Financial Times wrote about NAFTA: "Treally wenty years into Nafta, Mexico has too many criminals and not enough policemen; too many workers earning low wages and not enough skilled jobs; too many false dawns and not enough economic growth.

NAFTA really is a big economic failure. From 1994 through 2003, the Mexican economy has grown by only 11 percent per person. This is less than one-fourth the rate of growth that Mexico experienced in the 1960s and 1970s. This is the relevant economic comparison for anyone who wants to evaluate Mexico's experience with NAFTA.

Of course, the reforms embodied in NAFTA did not begin in 1994 - they started in the early 1980s. But if we take the longer view, it looks even worse: From 1980 to the present, income per person in Mexico has grown by about 19 percent. This compares to 93 percent for the 1960-1979 (somewhat shorter) period. In other words, there is no economic evidence that the NAFTA model is a success at least not for the tax paying public.

U.S. economic winners and losers under NAFTA vary with company size, type of industry or sector, and geographical location. Sectors affected positively include planes, trains and automobiles, large agri-businesses, appliance makers and energy corporations. Clearly, large multi-national companies with investment capacities, world-market savvy and capital resources have benefited from protected investment and cheap labor. These companies enhanced management performance-based compensation while putting downward pressure on production-worker wages and benefits, collective bargaining clout and available jobs, especially in manufacturing. Many view their actions as a major contributor to compensation inequality.

According to one estimate, workers in Canada and Mexico have displaced 829,280 U.S. jobs, mostly high-wage positions in manufacturing. The heaviest U.S. manufacturing-job losses were in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Connecticut, New Jersey, California, Indiana and Florida. 

Canada has so far experienced significant benefit from:

• U.S. investment in automotive production,
• Increases in oil exports to the U.S. and the rest of the world,
• Increases in shipment of beef, agricultural, wood and paper products to the U.S.
• Export of mineral and mining products, which have fared well in U.S. markets.

Canada has, however, also experienced some losses in narrow sectors such as specialty steel production and processed foods due to U.S. imports.

Overall the conclusion is that NAFTA has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents. It has made many U.S. companies and investors rich - and their managements even richer. But it has also cost many U.S. manufacturing workers their livelihoods while failing to raise living standards for most Mexicans. Any major market changes not dictated by market forces usually lead to both opportunity and loss, and this has happened with NAFTA. 

EU-Digest

Syria: Brilliant move Obama by seeking congressional approval before military action against Syria - by C. Todd, K. Welker and D. Arkin

President Barack Obama will seek authorization from Congress before launching any military action against the Syrian regime for allegedly using chemical weapons in a mass killing that claimed the lives of 1,429 people.

The president came to the unexpected decision during a walk Friday evening with his chief of staff Denis McDonough, just hours after Secretary of State John Kerry made a forceful case for the U.S. to attack Syria, sources told NBC News. After Obama returned from the stroll around the South Lawn, he called senior aides, leading to meetings Friday night and Saturday morning, the sources said.

Obama stressed on Saturday that American warships in the Mediterranean Sea still stood poised to strike regime targets at any time, despite the move that would place a hold on any imminent military action.

Note EU-Digest: Brilliant move by Obama.

Read more: Obama will seek congressional approval before any military action against Syria - World News

US Presidential Elections: New Wave of Polls Gives Obama the Advantage - by Christina Bellantoni and Terence Burlij

Whether you take the national view or go state-by-state, the polls all seem to show the same thing: President Obama has the advantage over Mitt Romney 48 days from Election Day.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday showed the president leading nationally among likely voters, 50 percent to 45 percent. It's the first time he has hit 50 percent in the survey since March.

The president had closed the gap with Romney on the question of which candidate would do a better job of handling the economy, with the two men now tied at 43 percent. The Republican presidential nominee held a six-point lead on that measure in July.

At the same time, views about the economy also improved. Forty-two percent of Americans said they think the economy will get better in the next 12 months, a six-point uptick since last month, while 18 percent responded they expected it to get worse. About a third of respondents said the economy would stay about the same.

The president also appeared to be in better shape in the battleground states that will ultimately decide the fall campaign.

A batch of swing-state surveys released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News showed the president with a six-point lead in Wisconsin (51 percent to 45 percent), a four-point advantage in Virginia (50-46) and a narrow edge in Colorado (48-47).

Mr. Obama made his first remarks on Romney's comments to David Letterman on Tuesday night. He pointedly needled his rival for saying that 47 percent of Americans would not vote for the Republican.
"I can tell you this. When I won in 2008, 47 percent of the American people voted for John McCain," Mr. Obama said. "They didn't vote for me. What I said on election night was even though you didn't vote for me, I hear your voices and I'm going as work as hard as I can to be your president. One of the things I've learned as president is you represent the entire country. And when I meet Republicans as I'm traveling around the country, they are hardworking family people who care deeply about this country. And my expectation is if you want to be president you've got to work for everybody, not just for some."

A new Democratic ad being aired which says, "Mitt Romney isn't the solution, he's the problem." is probably one that hits the nail on the head for the gafs Romney has been making.

Read more: New Wave of Polls Gives Obama the Advantage | PBS NewsHour

Sarkozy And Obama's Netanyahu Gaffe Broadcast Via Microphones

I cannot stand him. He's a liar,' Sarkozy told Obama. The US president responded by saying: 'You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day.' Neither leader apparently realised that microphones that had been attached for a press conference had already been switched on, allowing journalists waiting for a press conference to hear the conversation.

For more: OpEdNews - Quicklink: Sarkozy And Obama's Netanyahu Gaffe Broadcast Via Microphones

Obama dispatches 100 troops to Africa

President Obama notified Congress today that he is sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to help battle a rebel group known as the Lord's Resistance Army.

For more Obama dispatches 100 troops to Africa

US Poll: Budget impasse cements public’s disapproval of Washington (and Republicans)

When it comes to dealing with issue No. 1, the economy, Obama has an advantage: 46 percent say they put more faith in the president, 34 percent say so about congressional Republicans. Obama has a similar 12-point lead on the question of who better understands the economic problems people face, and a nine-point edge on dealing with the deficit.

On the economy, trust in the GOP among independents dropped from 42 percent in January to 29 percent in the new poll. Obama’s overall approval rating stands at 51 percent, down slightly from January, with 45 percent saying they disapprove of the job he is doing. Among independents, half say they approve of the way he is conducting his presidency. Obama spent the bulk of 2010 below the 50 percent mark among this key segment and can be encouraged by this poll.

Poll: Budget impasse cements public’s disapproval of Washington - The Washington Post

US Economy already $14 trillion in Debt: Both Congress and the President begin the battle over the debt ceiling - by Kenneth Schortgen Jr

As the new 112th Congress begins its session under Republican control in the House, one of the first things they will need to address is the debt ceiling that is closing fast on the current legal limit.

The Democratic Congress of the last two years passed several measures to raise the debt ceiling to $14.2 Trillion dollars, but according to the US Debt Clock, is going going to pass $14 Trillion within weeks. Without the ceiling being raised, the government may actually shut down since by law, the Treasury would not be able to borrow money to pay for programs or expenditures.

This debate is so important early in 2011, that both the President and the incoming Congressional leaders have spoken out on the issue over the Christmas holiday.

For more: Both Congress and the President begin the battle over the debt ceiling - National Finance Examiner | Examiner.com

US Politics: Some now see Obama as the 'comeback kid'

He wrestled Republicans and his own liberal wing into passage of the tax cut/unemployment deal. After a fitful start, he got a trade deal with South Korea. Saturday he saw a huge win in the demise of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military. And his allies on Capitol Hill so far have been able to beat back amendments that could have spiked the START nuclear weapons treaty with Russia.He wrestled Republicans and his own liberal wing into passage of the tax cut/unemployment deal. After a fitful start, he got a trade deal with South Korea. Saturday he saw a huge win in the demise of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military. And his allies on Capitol Hill so far have been able to beat back amendments that could have spiked the START nuclear weapons treaty with Russia.

For more: Some now see Obama as the 'comeback kid' - CSMonitor.com