IF THERE are ever sweets on the table of a European Commission meeting, there could be only one possible choice.

That would be fudge, since there is no institution that can so fudge even the simplest decisions.

It does this in pursuit of trying to please everyone and inevitably ends up pleasing no one. This failure to lead brings the commission into disrepute with many people and it is one of the issues tempting people towards voting 'no' in the June referendum on EU membership.

This approach is all the more frustrating when it is over what should be a clear-cut decision. The farming industry thought it had won the battle of the re-approval of glyphosate - the active ingredient in Roundup and the world's most widely used herbicide.

We seemed to be on course for the commission to set aside theoretical claims it could be a carcinogen by sticking with its proposal to re-licence the product for 15 years.

This was voted through the European parliament, but with a suggestion the licence should be for only seven years. This is being heeded, despite the parliament having no role in the decision.

It also suggested use be limited to 'professionals' which would effectively separate farmers and local authorities from gardeners.

Now it has emerged that the commission is seeking to fudge the decision. It is doing so to avoid conflict with member states that are pressing for a delay.

The fudge is in a letter to member states, which includes a suggestion that the licensing period should be reduced from 15 to 10 years.

This makes no sense, since if the product carries any carcinogenic risk, as its critics claim, then as much damage will be done in 10 as in 15 years.

That is a real fudge - an attempt to offer member states opposed to glyphosate an elegant way to back down.

The real question is why does the commission believe this is necessary?

It always likes a consensus approach to decisions, bringing as many member states on board as possible. However, that consensus formula was clearly lacking when the UK sought to renegotiate its relationship with the EU just a few months ago.

It was instead left with a 'take it or leave it' option. The commission should be insisting the glyphosate decision is based solely on science that can be defended rather than politics. That would allow the full 15 years licence for glyphosate.

Instead, by trying to compromise between its 15 years proposal and the seven years the parliament wanted, it is pushing a compromise that will please no-one.

If it presses ahead it might bring some other member states onto its side. But it will have raised unnecessary alarm with consumers over a product freely used in every other developed country.

The resulting scenario is easy to predict. The commission may still not get the qualified majority it needs and will ultimately have to force through a 10-year approval. This will be used to raise concerns about glyphosate, with pressure for farmers to impose a voluntary ban on its use.

The commission fudge is creating doubt where there should be none, and this will set a precedent for the renewal of other product licences.

It is also offering an assurance that if any doubts are raised in a review of glyphosate next year by the European Chemical Agency that it will immediately withdraw the licence.

Given that no review can prove a negative - that there is no risk - this could well be a rod created for its own back by a bureaucracy seeking to please rather than taking a defensible decision based solely on science.

On a separate note, this week brought pressure from the European parliament's agriculture committee for the European Commission to provide funding for the voluntary milk supply reduction programme.

The MEPs, rightly, argued that without compensation this could never work, but the commission has dug its heels in and has again ruled out any additional funds for the dairy sector.

A key reason is the failure of many member states to pay out emergency funds already agreed.

That failure is damaging the arguments farmers are making and allowing the commission to hope price improvements and better end of season payment forecasts for the southern hemisphere are evidence that the dairy sector is on the slow road to recovery.

That, sadly, is yet another fudge, even if the supply reduction plan is not the right approach.