The top five origins whose food samples were the most in number as tested by CFIA are: United States, Unknown, Canada, India and China.
The chart below gives one view of the average glyphosate content in foods from these five origins, calculated as the total glyphosate in all foods divided by the number of food samples that actually contained glyphosate, excluding the clean samples, for each region. This represents the average level of contamination among the contaminated samples. The averages for all samples is the basis by which contamination levels are calculated for the rest of the book. The median line represents sort of the average, but is weighted according to the number of samples. Since number of samples are the highest from the United States, ‘Unknown” and Canada, the median is more influenced by them than by India or China. If there were equal number of samples from all these regions and more so from other countries from the world, the median would have been much lower as an indication of world average. In the chart below, this dotted red line carries a value of 204 as a whole number.
The good the bad and the ugly (median)
Thus, the United States and ‘Unknown’ are seen as sort of average, not an ideal average though. Canada is rated as bad because of having levels of contamination in its food that is 50% worse than even the median. India and China, having much lower levels of contamination, are rated good.
The table/chart below is one way to explain how foods available in Canada that originated in Canada, Unknown, the United States, India and China compare between them, with regard to glyphosate contamination.
The table gives two sets of values for each region. the chart superimposed over the table presents the same two values for each region.
These two values are average level of glyphosate contamination for each region, but calculated in under two different criteria, using two different ratio.
The bottom line, in green represents the values in the second column from left, titled “overall ppb”. This means, all the readings of glyphosate from samples from the region that had any glyphosate, was added, and then divided by the total number of samples, including samples that had no glyphosate.
The upper line, in black, represents the last column from left, where the same total amount of glyphosate was divided by only the number of samples that had any glyphosate.
In other words, the bottom line shows average glyphosate for every sample of the region, irrespective of if they were clean samples or dirty samples, while the top line is the average glyphosate content for only those samples that did have some glyphosate.
These two lines would merge in cases where a region had no clean sample at all, and all the samples contained some glyphosate, or where 100% of the samples were contaminated.
Both of them give varied but statistically significant indication for a consumer, about foods from which countries that are available in Canada, contain how much glyphosate. Foods imported from China ranked fifth number of samples, and proves to be the best food with the least amount of glyphosate in them, in either representation.
This may not be what the people of China are eating, but this is how those varieties that are exported by them to Canada, compare with the rest.
Meanwhile I made a 3 minute video on who the book Poison Foods of North America is for.
Thank you Mr. Mulcair, for the note, and I do not disagree. However, issues raised in your note is of minor importance in my judgment, compared to rising toxicity in foods produced in Canada that makes it near impossible for average citizens to eat without being slow poisoned.
Tom Mulcair, NDP leader
This is to do with rampant toxicity in our food system due to unending use of pesticides such as Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer.
A few of the past NDP parliamentarians had been aware of the gravity of the situation and had done what they could within their means to resist it or raise awareness. Unfortunately, I do not see any sign of awareness or interest in it among the current NDP politicians that I can vote for. NDP candidate from my riding in BC does not even acknowledged let alone answer email from me.
Here are the basics I would like you to consider.
1) I have studied near 8,000 records of tests done by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, on foods collected in Canada, produced in Canada and imported from over sixty countries, for presence of glyphosate. I am in possession of the records and am so shocked with the results that I wrote an e-book and published on Amazon to alert the people about it . The book is titled ‘POISON FOODS OF NORTH AMERICA’.
2) Conventional, non GMO seed crops that are desiccated with glyphosate are the most contaminated with this weed killer instead of roundup ready GM crops. Most toxic of North American foods are Rye, Wheat, Oats, Chickpea and lentils, all of which carry too much glyphosate in them, way more than in roundup ready crops like corn or soy.
3) I found that english speaking North America produces foods that are an order of dimension more toxic with glyphosate contamination than foods produced by anybody else anywhere else.
Toxicity in North American foods compared to the rest of the world
4) Canada produces foods that are significantly more contaminated with this weed killer than even foods produced in the United States. This makes Canada the epicentre of poisonous foods in the world. There is rising evidence that we are slow poisoning our citizens, ruining our future generations and pushing our wildlife towards extinction.
Ravi Kahlon – NDP candidate
Please take note – the government of Canada has till date has not disclosed actual safety test and analysis reports based on which it decided glyphosate was safe enough to be approved for use in agriculture. According to my understanding of the law, it is illegal to approve a product and allow its release while withholding its safety test data. My repeated efforts with the government to release all safety documents on glyphosate has not produced results. Our government does not say I do not have the right to see these safety results, but continues to drag its feet. Health Canada has been dragging its feet on this for forty years now.
The rate of rise of auto immune diseases because of this in North America and especially in Canada is going through the roof. Our school system is going to be wrecked due rising demand for more and more special need children, as will our health care and economy. Our big game wildlife are being pushed to the edge of extinction due to rising level of birth defects that make rising percentage newborns unable to reach maturity or produce viable offsprings due to constant use of the practice in aerial spray of glyphosate over Crown forests by logging corporations while nobody has ever seen or approved any study of the effect of glyphosate on environment. Neither our provincial governments nor Ottawa wants to open this pandora’s box. I have butted head with the BC government repeatedly to find out what safety documents it has seen before approval of spraying glyphosate over BC forests without any result.
I am including a small table (above) from my book, which has over 300 such tables. To me, this and all future elections have becomes a more or less single issue election
Scott Hamilton, the incumbent liberal MLA will not respond to my emails. Mr. Kahlon, the NDP candidate, will also not respond. For the first time in my life, I am forced to contemplate not voting for any major candidate and am searching for a third party candidate that might be ready to acknowledge and address this looming disaster.
Canadian rye the most toxic on earth
A candidate that refuses to face this issue is one that deserves to be an unemployed politician in my view.
This email concerns public interest and not a private matter. Therefore it should be considered as a public letter of grave concern for Canadians. This letter and any response received, or not received, may be included and discussed on social media, my blogs, any newspaper that might agree to post it, and included in future versions of my book. I have had as much silence from political candidates as I can stomach.
Please take this not as an attack, but a sign of extreme frustration with a political process where candidates want people’s votes but will not address people’s concerns.
Scott Hamilton, incumbent MLA, Liberal
I look forward to what you might have to say about it Mr. Mulcair.
Comment by scientist Stephanie Seneff about glyphosate in food and about my analysis of the CFIA data. This comment is from the book itself:
I believe glyphosate will go down in history as the worst synthetic chemical this planet has ever faced, as a consequence of its perceived non-toxicity to humans and its massive use in agriculture and on people’s lawns with careless handling due to lack of awareness of its insidious, cumulative toxicity. It is destructive of human health and it is threatening extinction to multiple species, most obviously the bees and the monarch butterflies. I believe it will eventually be proven that glyphosate gets into proteins by mistake in place of glycine, and that this is the key reason for several phenomena going on in the US (and Canada?) that currently are seemingly inexplicable:
the epidemic in autoimmune diseases, most importantly autism and dementia,
the runaway health care costs that are bankrupting our government, and
the epidemic in opioid drug abuse due to chronic intense pain as a consequence of glyphosate disrupting the elastic and tensile strength properties of collagen, and then causing an autoimmune attack on collagen.
Collagen makes up 25% of the body’s protein, and glycine makes up 25% of collagen’s amino acids. Collagen in pigs and cows fed heavy doses of glyphosate in their feed is the main source of gelatin that makes its way into vaccines, gel caps, jello, and various other food products. Collagen is contaminated with glyphosate and as a consequence so are these derivatives. This easily explains why MMR vaccine today causes many more acute adverse reactions than it did in the 1990’s.
This book by Tony Mitra is priceless because it tells you which foods have the highest contamination of glyphosate, so you can change your eating habits to minimize your exposure. Glyphosate needs to be banned immediately across the globe, if we are to preserve a bright future for our children and grandchildren.
Senior Research Scientist
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
From US scientist Don Huber
“Poison Foods of North America” provides critical information for all healthy, health conscience, infirm and struggling individuals that is necessary to prevent the deterioration in their and their families health as a result of the betrayal of the public trust that was placed in regulatory bodies.
Future historians may well look back upon our time and write, not about how many pounds of pesticides we did or did not apply, but about how willing we are to sacrifice our children and jeopardize future generations based on flawed science and failed promises just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.
Don M. Huber,
A response received
(Le français suit l’anglais)Thank you for contacting our office.All messages are read and considered. However, due to the high volume of emails received, it may not be possible to respond personally to each one.Please visit our website (http://www.ndp.ca) to learn more about our NDP team (http://www.ndp.ca/team) and latest news (http://www.ndp.ca/news).Thank you again for taking the time to share your ideas, concerns and insights. Your input helps us with our work.All the best,Office of Tom Mulcair, MP (Outremont)Leader, New Democratic Party
A question asked of the election candidates of my riding
There are more than 1,100 records of foods tested for glyphosate by CFIA that originated from countries other than Canada and the United States. For this book, I have grouped them as the “Rest of the world”. There are sixty six countries in this group.
There is a reason why this grouping was done by me. Foods produced in the rest of the world, exceptions aside, are an order of dimension better than similar foods grown in English speaking North America, with respect to slow poisoning from glyphosate.
Before folks get into a knot on my use of the term ‘poison’ with regard to glyphosate, I have clarified my position in the book already, which are, briefly as follows
The government of Canada has not disclosed to me or the public any direct tests and data that actually provides proof that glyphosate is safe to be in food at any level of concentration.
Therefore, in my view, all assurances from the Government that the levels present in food currently are safe, is worth little more than voodoo.
Governments and scientists do not own the word poison. They are free to keep harping that glyphosate is not toxic and not poisonous, I shall continue to believe that it is an acute poison to many beneficial organisms that we need and a chronic poison for all other creatures of value including ourselves. I am not in the least interested to engage in any debate on the matter, unless the test results on safety of glyphosate is placed in public domain and be made available for independent scrutiny.
Meanwhile, I have nearly 8,000 records of foods tested in Canada originating from nearly 70 countries, for presence of glyphosate. This book is to alert people about it
A truncated master list of the 66 countries with respect to glyphosate in food, as tested by CFIA, is given below. This section only shows the top half, due to size and bandwidth limits. In the book, the full list covers three pages.
The table covers all the rest of the world, outside of English Speaking North America. The portions shown here are the worst group on top, and the ‘caution’ group in the middle. The top countries and their average level of glyphosate contamination are highlighted in read at left and right column. Countries that have a sample number of ten or more, and therefore might provide a better statistics are highlighted in yellow.
IN the worst group, with samples of ten or more, are Turkey, Poland, Greece and Lebanon. These are the real bad apples, followed by a few others with fewer samples.
The middle group, that are not as bad as the worst and not as good as the best, are highlighted yellow. Relevant countries here are Japan, Italy, India, and Korea.
Countries in the good range ( not included in the table above) are many, which is a very healthy sign for the rest of the world. These countries are Bolivia, China, Chile, Mexico, Spain, Peru, South Africa, Ecuador, France, Thailand, Netherlands, Guatemala. The first countries in this list, i.e. Bolivia have glyphosate content closer to 5 and the last country, Guatemala have zero.
Leaving the bad apples of the rest of the world, let us go back to Australia for now. It occupies the highest rung for the nastiest average contamination in the rest of the world, although with only 4 samples. Further, with only 25% of them contaminated, with an average that is so high, it implies that only one out of those four were bad and that one must have had four times the average value. in fact, that one sample was bad enough to turn Australia into a potential nastiest producer of food outside of Canada and USA. So, one might dig into it a bit and figure out what is going on there.
There it is. This Mung Bean is the culprit that places Australia at the top of the nastiest of nasty list of the rest of the world, for producing glyphosate laden food.
But, far as I know, Mung bean, or Moong Dal, is a lentil of India and not particularly common dish for non-Asians. So what is this Mung Bean, and so highly toxic to boost, doing as an Australian produce ?
I do not know the full answer, but can hazard a guess. India is a densely populated country, and is upwardly mobile in the sense that it is finally shedding its abject poverty and malnutrition through two centuries of western colonization that squeezed it to bare bones, and is just now beginning to eat better. In the process its domestic production is unable to cope with rising demand, and with money in its pocket, India is beginning to import some foods from outside.
This has caught the attention of countries with agricultural land to spare and attractive markets to capture.
Enters countries like Canada, USA and Australia. Each of them start growing lentils. While the US grown lentils have relatively lower levels of glyphosate, those from Canada are really high, as per CFIA records. And now it appears that the single sample from Australia is also sky high in unwanted toxicity. One also wonders how this sample ended up in Canada ? Is it being imported from Australia into Canada? Why? Is some store importing it because it is cheaper than local lentils? Who is growing it in Australia and why?
Perhaps someone will figure this one out and educate us. My suspicion is that it is grown for India and for people of the Indian diaspora, who are quite well settled and reasonably affluent in North America, Europe, the Middle East and even Australia, all of whom might be the secondary target markets for these lentils.
Of course, lentils from Australia, and if these are designed to end up slow poisoning people in India or the Indian diaspora living across the world, is neither the main nor the only story for this section on the “rest of the world”. So readers might just read on.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had nearly 8,000 records of foods tested for presence of glyphosate, which I came to acquire a copy of after years of working on this issue with various levels of the Canadian Government going back some number of years, to the time when Mr. Harper was the Prime Minister. My interactions started with the issues that Canada at the time did not even have a lab that would test foods for glyphosate, which I considered to be an outrageous and unacceptable state of affair. Thankfully, within a year, labs started getting themselves accredited for testing foods for glyphosate, more or less concurrent with the time when World Health Organization classified glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen.
While this matter was kept outside of the media or Government outlets, i was fully aware of a scheme going on to test foods available in Canada, of both Canadian and imported kind, for glyphosate. This started my next level of effort with the Government to get my hands on the food test records. In between all this there has been letters, meetings, petitions and motions initiated by me and sent to Health Ministers spanning two governments, demanding disclosure on various aspects on glyphosate, from its approval for agriculture, to setting of MRLs, to its aerial use over forests, prairies and watersheds. Those details may not have a direct relation with this blog, but all these efforts and years of involvement brought me to where I was three months ago, sitting on a huge pile of test records on foods collection in Canada, and around a thousand and five hundred of those records involved foods originating in the United States, and a similar number for foods grown in Canada. India and China provided the most samples after USA and Canada.
All these records were scanned by me and converted to editable text and numbers using optical character recognition software, and error corrected. Finally, multiple giant spreadsheets were created to sort through the data for analysis. That prompted me to write and publish an online e-Book to alert the people. I named it “POISON FOODS OF NORTH AMERICA”.
The book is over 300 page long and has more than 300 tables, along with charts and images. Many of the tables give the actual raw data with regard to glyphosate content and description of the food sample, its origin etc.
Some of the findings were as expected while some are totally unexpected, and often shocking.
Here are a few examples:
Canada and USA produce the most toxic foods on the planet, with regard to glyphosate contamination.
Within North America, Canada produces foods with significantly higher levels of glyphosate.
Within Canada, the west is where one can find more glyphosate contaminated foods than from other regions within Canada.
Western Canada is ground zero, for finding nasty foods.
Cleanest of food suppliers are Peru, Thailand, France, South Africa, Mexico, and China. China apparently exports cleaner foods than what locals consume inside China. For example, imported foods from China, averaging 3 ppb contamination, is 28 times cleaner than foods produced in the US, and over 45 times cleaner than foods produced in Canada.
Foods imported from Mexico is 70 times cleaner than Canadian foods and over 40 times cleaner than foods originating in the United States.
Conventional foods desiccated by glyphosate is far more contaminated than GM crops that are roundup ready.
Out of the main cereals, rice is about the only one that is more or less without any glyphosate, except for some rice, rice flour or rice based products produced in Canada and the US.
Lentils and chickpea (garbanzo) produced in North America, as well as foods made with these ingredients are highly contaminated with glyphosate.
Although soy flour may contain high glyphosate, tofu made out of soy has none.
Wheat bran produced in Canada has an average of around 2,500 ppb of glyphosate in every sample.
Foods from over sixty nations have been tested, but not all of them contributed large number of samples. However, a few nations did have high sample depth, USA is among them.
The table here was truncated from a long one, with each and every type of food that was recorded by CFIA to have come from the United States. Then, for now, all food types that hat had less than 10 samples were set aside.
Of the remaining samples, how many belonged to which food type was entered in the second column from left, against each food types. How many of that food type proved ‘negative’ or had to glyphosate, was checked. These two figures allowed calculations on what percentage of the samples were dirty (proved positive in glyphosate screening). Then all the glyphosate and AMPA values were added and then divided by the total number of samples for each food type, to get average ppb contamination level, which is shown in the last column.
Then the table was sorted by ppb values in descending order, and included as the first item within the subchapter of foods from the United States.
So this table is the dirty dozen of American foods.
We shall then proceed with looking at more details of some of the dirty dozen that have high glyphosate levels and high enough sample depth to provide a glimpse of what is happening with toxicity in US grown foods.
The top two items in the second table above are in violation of the MRL (Maximum residue Limit) set by the Canadian Government. What is interesting to ponder, or perhaps correspond with the authorities about, is what happens with such violations are noted. Ideally, the product should be withdrawn. Public should be notified and warned not to buy or consume it. Those that already bought this item should be advised to return it to the store and get a refund. The producer should be prosecuted. The issue should be out on mainstream media for public awareness.
None of that, as far as I can remember happened or happens. I do not remember a single instance with I was aware of such foods being recalled or public warned.
So, are we to suppose that those MRLs which are themselves set arbitrarily without providing any proof of their authenticity, are also not being implemented? In our food safety mechanism we might have a reproduction of the “wild west”.
In the case of violations on foods imported, in this case from the US, should the US Government and public also not be notified? Is anybody from the US aware of this situation?
I use the term toxic and poisonous interchangeably to mean the same thing, and I deny the mainstream any right to control the meaning of the terms toxic or poisonous with regard to glyphosate.
As long as the public is denied independently verifiable proof that glyphosate in food is safe at any level, over the lifetime of animals consuming it even in low dose, to me, all talks of glyphosate being safe is worth little more than magic or voodoo.
Mainstream can continue to consider glyphosate as safe, and I shall continue to believe it is the most dangerous synthetic chemical to have entered our food system and threatens to undo the long term health of the human society as well as all flora and fauna of the land.
And thus, the table above is the opening section of the “dirty dozen” of US foods. We shall also have more such tables covering the remaining items in dirty dozens list from USA, Canada, Unknown, and some other countries.
The book is already online, but constantly being improved, proof read, new tables, charts, subjects and value added. All updates should be free for legal owners of previous copies. However, there is a catch. Apparently, free updates are decided on case by case basis by Amazon after receiving an application from the author. Standard guidelines provided by Amazon mentions that additional chapter and added pages do not qualify for free access to later versions of the book by folks that bought an earlier version. I did not know that till I started inquiring with Amazon. Now I am trying to impress upon them that this book is a reference and analysis of the most controvercial herbicide in our food system and there is no other book of this kind, covering data that is not available to anybody else at this point of time. And later versions cover critical data on foods form the US, a significant producer of foods that are contaminated with this herbicide. I hope to impress upon them to make a difference and allow free updates to owners of earlier copies.
Otherwise, I would suggest that potential readers might like to wait for about a weak or two before purchasing the book. For all these confusions, the price of the book is lowered temporarily by a few dollars. It will be back up to around $ 9.99 as soon as sections covering US foods and foods from China and India are completed. Target is by the first week of April, 2017.
The book can be found in Amazon, NAMED “Poison foods of North America”. Book cover, designed by me, is shown here with the link.
I also made a three minute video on the book, as shown below.
Lastly, this book is not designed to add to the debate on if glyphosate is safe and at what level. I have no interest to join any such debate. I am uninterested in the opinion of the glyphosate supporting industry and their supportive political and media outlets. I live in a free country and the meaning of any word or term such as toxic or poisonous, is not owned by the industry. The meaning is not even etched in stone and changes with times depending on perception by the people.
So, the mainstream can continue to harp that glyphosate is safe. I shall continue to believe it is dangerous and unsafe at any level of concentration, until proven otherwise by independent verification and the regime of secrecy around it has been dismantled.
So who is this book for? It is for those that have, like me, already decided that glyphosate is a seriously harmful molecule in their food web and they would rather find a way to avoid it right now. Those are the people this book is for.
The mainstream science, media, political class and the regulatory authority has lost public trust on this issue. This book is not aimed at influencing their opinion. This book is for the people – the rest of us.
The eBook ‘POISON FOODS OF NORTH AMERICA” is up on Amazon now. It sells under the the banner of a Kindle edition. It describes how a person could adapt and modify one’s eating habit in order to avoid being slow poisoned by a steady dose of glyphosate. The analysis is based on 7,800 odd records of foods tested by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), of which I got a copy of the raw data of the tests.
As a result there has been some confusion among potential customers, that they might be forced to buy a hardware device from Amazon, in order to read these books. Well, as it happens, that is not true. Amazon sells a free app for various devices. I have found reading the book on my computer to be the most pleasing because of the lovely appearance of the tables.
This blog is written for those who have a doubt if they can read the book “POISON FOODS OF NORTH AMERICA” if do not have a kindle reader device, and think they cannot read this book without that device. Many are reluctant to buy this device only to read one book. This blog is for them and the purpose is to assure them that they do not need to buy an additional device just for one book.
A kindle app logo looks like the one at the right. It is available free of charge at Amazon, and there is an app for each kind of device in your home, such as a computer, or a tablet or a smart phone etc.
The book cover is shown below. I initially thought this would be a temporary cover and I shall move on to a better looking cover later on. But, I think human brain associates some images with the matter represented by that image. In other words, this book cover image is now linked with the book on glyphosate in Food as tested by CFIA. So I shall let the cover stay for now.
The book, if read through my MAC laptop using the kind app, looks quite pleasant. One of the chapters are shown below as a sample.
Finally, I made a four minute video showing how it actually looks on my mac laptop.
Glyphosate has been in the public eye for a while now. I hear that in California, a court has mandated that Roundup herbicide must have a comment in the label that it likely is carcinogenic, or can cause cancer.
There is further news coming from some reportedly leaked comments from within US-EPA that the manner in which glyphosate safety test documents and data has been accepted has apparently not gone well with everyone in EPA. Well, it is almost 40 years since glyphosate has been unleashed. It is high time that approval of glyphosate was put under scrutiny.
In Canada, the EPA counter part, Health Canada, has never released all the safety documents and data based on which it approved glyphosate for use in agriculture. According to my understanding of the law, it is illegal to approve and allow release of a product while withholding release of its safety data. I have had multi-year running issues with the government trying to get disclosure of these safety records.
It is because of these reasons that I do not accept the government set safe limits (MRL) of glyphosate in food. One cannot accept 5,000 ppb of glyphosate in wheat, when the government has not shown proof that glyphosate is safe even at 1 ppb.
Meanwhile, after some years of butting heads with the government on a related issue of Canada not having labs that could test glyphosate in food, and after WHO declared glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen, thankfully the Government showed some inclination to test foods for glyphosate, but on the quiet and away from mainstream media glare.
By the summer of 2015, there were indications from labs that they were busy handling lots of orders from Ottawa in testing glyphosate in all kinds of food samples.
I had by then already been asking Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for letting me have results of all foods tested in Canada for glyphosate. Finally, in December 2016, I got over 7,800 records of foods tested for glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA under order of CFIA.
The records involved more than five thousand samples and at times multiple records on each samples involving glyphosate and/or AMPA content. Samples were all collected from within Canada, but represented both locally grown and imported food. Foods from more than sixty countries had been collected and tested.
Attempt was initiated immediately, convert the data into an usable format and to analyze it and advise the people on which kinds of foods had how much glyphosate. Scanned images of pages of those records were converted using OCR software, error corrected and turned into electronic data that could be sorted, tabulated, and used for analysis
Same was done over the next few months. The results have in some cases been as expected and in other cases, totally surprising.
A few things became clear as more and more data were analyzed. For example, crops that were not genetically modified but were grown in an industrial scale in north America and were desiccated with glyphosate, had very much more glyphosate in them, than genetically modified Roundup Ready crops.
Another shocking realization was, Canada and the US were producers of the most toxic food in the planet. The difference was not even marginal. Canadian and American grown foods, especially those conventional non GM crops that used glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant, had an order of dimension greater level of glyphosate poison in them than the same crops grown anywhere else.
Since I have reason to doubt the Government set MRL while safety data is kept out of reach of people, I consider any level of glyphosate concentration to be poisonous – acutely poisonous to a large body of beneficial organisms and a chronic poison for all other creatures of value including ourselves.
And so, finally, the e-book was prepared and placed on line with Amazon.
This book is not designed to join a debate on if glyphosate is safe or unsafe to be in food or at what level it might be dangerous. This book is for those people that have already decided that glyphosate is an undesirable chemical that can cause serious harm even if taken in low doses over time. It is for those people that are looking for a tool to help navigate through this glyphosate minefield of North American food system.
The book will continue to be edited and more material added. Legal owners will get free downloads of all updates on it. The book is currently over 220 pages long on an iPad and over thousand pages long on a smart phone, as indicated through Amazon upload, though I have not checked it with my iPad or iPhone yet.
Analysis of near 8000 records of foods collected and tested in Canada that originated in over 60 countries, for glyphosate content, between mid 2015 and end 2016 by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
North American foods are most heavily contaminated by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer. This book is for those people who do not look for continued debate on safety levels of glyphosate, and have already decided that glyphosate is an undesirable chemical to be in their food, and merely wish to have a tool with which they could try and avoid eating foods that have high glyphosate content.
The book has over 220 pages, 55,000 words, filled with over 250 tables along with charts and images. The data is sorted in chapters, starting with the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) set by the government, comparison of glyphosate in food according to country of origin, and checking according to food types, such as grains, beans, flour, lentils, fruits, vegetables, and ready made meals. Under wheats, sub-sections check wheat bran, wheat flour, wheat germ, whole wheat, pasta, pizza, baking mix, couscous. It shows how glyphosate contamination of bran in wheat grown in Canada averages at over 2,000 ppb, or how 96% of all Canadian wheat bran tested were contaminated against 78% of the US wheat bran. It gives some of the worse contaminations of individual samples in separate tables, with contaminations between 4,000 and 7,000 ppb and how some of them are in violation of the MRL set by the government.
There are specific chapters on organic foods or gluten free ones, and tables comparing where eating organic ensures lower glyphosate contamination and where it does not ensure that. It shows which foods are free of glyphosate irrespective of being organic or not.
Glyphosate (RoundUp) has been in our farms and fields for a generation. That it is safe for humans is supposed to have been verified by the Government. Yet, the documents containing tests done on animals that prove that it does not affect mammals, or beneficial insects such as worms, bees, our gut micro-biome and the flora and fauna of the land, have been kept out of reach from the people.
My understanding of the law is – if the safety documents of a product cannot be released to the people, then the product itself may not be approved for release. While the Government is not saying people do not have right to see the documents, these data are one way or another kept out of reach of the people, often using arguments that the promoter of the product has patents and intellectual rights, and there is a confidentiality clause attached to the agreement with the Government.
This book is not aimed to join the debate on if glyphosate is safe and at what level of contamination it might be a concern. Rather, this book is designed for those people that have already decided to actively try and avoid having glyphosate in their food. This book is to help them select what kind of food, grown in which countries might be better or worse.
Canadian and US foods are about the most contaminated in the entire planet, and finding clean food free of glyphosate has gotten a major challenge, as the data shown in this book will indicate. Navigating through this glyphosate mine field may be of paramount importance for discerning people that are already conscious of potential health issues related to consuming a continuous dose of glyphosate over a long period.
I believe, without bias, that this book is the best guide and tool for consumers, especially those living in North America or considering imported foods from North America, to avoid a steady dose of slow poisoning through glyphosate. I believe this is the only one of its kind. There is no other.
I received over 7,800 records of foods tested by the Canadian Government on glyphosate contamination in foods.
I am writing an e-book on my analysis of the data, and am both shocked and outraged to find that Canadian food is the most poisonous in the entire planet, with US foods running second.
This book is not designed to weigh in on any debate on if glyphosate is safe or not, to be in food.
I have drawn a line in the sand, and decided that one part per billion glyphosate in my food is one part too much. I completely uninterested in what mainstream media or the corporate lobby or the politicians have to say about it, since they refuse to provide any proof that glyphosate in any level of concentration is safe.
This book is for people that already have reached similar decisions, and merely want a tool to navigate their way through the food web, in order to avoid food wit high glyphosate content and to pick out the better ones in hope of avoiding being poisoned by what they eat.
That is who the book is designed for.
Attached nine minute video explains the issue about the book, earmarked to be available by end March or first week of April 2017.
This is going to be discussed in the book being written. But for now, here is the preliminary text on the issue of glyphosate in tofu.
It first came to my attention that while glyphosate was detectable in soy flour by the CFIA tests, it was strangely absent from 50 samples of conventional tofu. I could not figure out why or how the glyphosate disappeared from tofu, if it was already there in the flour used to make tofu. I asked a few scientists I knew. That started the ball rolling. And by now, the issue of glyphosate in tofu has gone beyond CFIA test records. It has started by me wondering why tofu tested by CFIA turned out with zero glyphosate while the soy flour it is made from contains much of the herbicide. I had made an earlier brief post on it on Facebook.
Well, the subject has caught attention of a number of scientists and caused a bit of investigation. While the jury is still out, and while no doubt some more investigation might continue by those that are able to conduct further glyphosate tests during the process of tofu making, a couple of details are beginning to emerge. These are :
As a preparatory step to tofu making, the soy flour is mixed in water and boiled. In this process some of the proteins that incorporated glyphosate, as well as some of the carbohydrates, get denatured, thus releasing the glyphosate out from their molecular bonds.
Next, the curdling of tofu is achieved by coagulants which can be either magnesium chloride MgCl2 or calcium sulphate Ca(SO4), salts of bivalent metals Magnesium or Calcium. Some countries like using MgCl2 while others use CaSO4 as coagulant.
Now, glyphosate, which is an amino acid, apparently very readily bonds with these salts of magnesium or calcium, and the resultant salt is very soluble in water.
So, during the process of tofu making, when the curdled tofu paste is pushed down and the water is being separated, to be eventually discarded, the glyphosate that had been released during the denaturing of the proteins and carbohydrates get caught and bonded with the coagulant to form Calcium or Magnesium salts in solution in the discarded water, and can no more be found in the tofu.
In some ways, the to fu making process filters out the glyphosate and gets discarded with the water. This is likely going to be tested eventually by someone in due course, as a confirmation.
Meanwhile, the issue remains about how much of the glyphosate was released when the stuff was boiled. There is a point of view that not all of it gets released, and some remain tightly bound with their parent structure, such that the boiling does not release them. Not just that, but their spectogram is not where glyphosate or AMPA would show up. Therefore LC-MSMS tests may not detect their presence.
Because of these two factors, a) most of the identifiable glyphosate having been captured and removed into the discarded water as magnesium or calcium salts and b) any remaining glyphosate stays undetectable by mass spectrometry, thereby becoming invisible and resulting in possible false negative.
That the above b) might be correct, was deduced by cross checking of scientists with their colleagues back in Asia, where comparative study of body organs was made between subjects that ate GMO tofu and those that did not.
Curiously, part of a new powerpoint slides made for the purpose was named Mitra-Samsel-17.pptx. That made me smile.
Here is one of the slides.
Anyhow, about any glyphosate that did not get trapped in the discarded tofu water, and evades detection, may still be able to cause trouble for consumers, though I should assume it would be less toxic due to the glyphosate that had been removed by the coagulant.
This brings the subject back to the techniques used by the labs, to prepare the sample before glyphosate testing can be done. Apparently most of the glyphosate in the sample can be released for detection by proteolysis using proteinase K or acid hydrolysis. Proteinase K is an enzyme derived from fungus and is not subjected to glyphosate exposure, while other animal enzymes may be contaminated with glyphosate because of their feed.
Therefore, using the right preparatory step taken by the lab before testing glyphosate in samples, especially of proteinaceous samples, might be critical. However, we do not know at this stage what methods were used by the labs employed by CFIA. To the best knowledge of some of the US scientists, most US labs had no knowledge of the problems relating to detection of glyphosate embedded in proteins. They often used an older method of using acidulated methanol to release glyphosate, which may give false results.
Anthony Samsel had the following questions.. “Also, I need to know about CANADA’s methods of testing for Glyphosate in these 7000 samples.. Is it GC MS, HPLC MSMS or ELISA and if they are using acidulated methanol. The reason that I ask, most labs doing HPLC use acidulated methanol in the method. This can mask GLLYPHOSATE so that you don’t get accurate results they are too low and or low levels disappear completely giving a false negative result….”
I should be trying to find some of the answers. While I do not have a confirmation, I can see signs that CFIA first subjected all samples to an ELISA test called glyphosate screening. Results would be either ‘negative’ meaning no glyphosate found, or ‘positive’ meaning glyphosate was detected. No level of concentration of glyphosate was detected in this test. Both results will be entered in the CFIA data, as positive, or negative.
Then, all samples that resulted ‘negative’ will be put aside.
All samples that proved ‘positive’ will be sent again for a costlier LC-MSMS test which was able to detect presence and concentration of glyphosate and AMPA simultaneously.
The result is entered by CFIA as follows:
If there was only glyphosate detected, a single entry is made agains that sample – for glyphosate concentration in ppm
If both glyphosate and AMPA were detected, two entries are made against that sample – one for glyphosate and one more for AMPA.
Thus, a specific food sample can have following entries in the CFIA record:
Just one record – negative
Two records, one for ‘positive’ and another for ppm glyphosate
Three records, one for ‘positive’, one for ppm glyphosate and yet another on ppm AMPA
That answers part of Anthony Samsel’s question, but still leaves out how precisely did the labs try to pull the glyphosate out of the proteinaceous matter? If the US labs knew nothing about using correct proteolysis, then can we expect Canadian labs to do better? This is a question I shall later try to find an answer to. For now, we do not know.
Lastly, the latest science paper that Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel are awaiting publication of, apparently mentions that even Monsanto, or Dupont had found out years ago that if the correct proteolysis was done before testing, the yield in detectable glyphosate in a sample can increase 60 to 120 fold. Thats a staggering level of glyphosate that remains undetectable unless the right step is taken.
So, what do we learn from all this, and the fact that in the CFIA tests, soy flour showed presence of glyphosate, but tofu did not?
I have more or less cleaned up the 7,800 odd records received from CFIA on foods tested for glyphosate. That has brought me to study wheat products to greater detail, because wheat is regularly desiccated with glyphosate in North America and is a suspect crop to contain high glyphosate. The results of the investigation, described below, has helped me prepare two graphs. The first one is below, Graph-1, is a line diagram of average glyphosate (& AMPA) content in wheat subgroups. You can see how the figure for wheat bran goes through the roof.
Then there is the issue of other subgroups. Although their average content appears relatively low, the view of this presenter, (tony mitra) is that no glyphosate is good glyphosate and that standard toxicology tests for glyphosate is insufficient an yardstick for assessing safety limits of glyphosate. Therefore, preference is to have no glyphosate at all. Further, effort is made here to check how many of the samples of each subgroup contain glyphosate, and for that figure, apart from average ppb limits, to be as relevant an indication. To that end, the second graph (#2) was prepared, based on below Table-D. The picture is not pretty.
A few unanswered question remain. These are:
Glyphosate screening – where the result is negative or positive, but without specific µg/g concentration of AMPA or glyphosate. I suspect these screenings represented a cheaper first test and if the results are negative, then no further action is taken except recording it. For samples that have a “positive” indication, a further test, perhaps using HPLC-MSMS method, is used to measure the level of contamination. However, this needs to be confirmed with CFIA. If there is a different explanation of the glyphosate screen test, then the percentages in tis blog might change. I intend to sort that out before the book is published.
There are a few readings of AMPA, and many more of glyphosate. It is likely that the same sample, once proven ‘Positive” was tested for both, and readings of AMPA, where noted, were included. I need a confirmation of this from CFIA. If so, the number of tests might remains same but number of samples would shrink slightly, since a few of the samples represented two test results, one for glyphosate and one more for AMPA. This will likely reduce the “dirty” percentage, since there are now a slightly lower number of dirty samples. On the other hand, it would increase the average ppb content since the total ppb or glyphosate and AMPA wold now be divided by a lesser number of samples.
With regard to wheat and wheat products, I have a major question and concern – there seem to be no test of standard bread. Since wheat readings are comparatively bad, with a lot of the products having glyphosate, and since wheat is a major ingredient in bread making, I am baffled by the omission of testing bread. I intend to try and find out from CFIA what the reason might be, for not testing bread.
Table-A gives the number of tests done on wheat, broken down into some of the common subgroups. More than a thousand tests are represented in the above table. Some of the readings may not be fully correct, such as RTE (ready to eat – meals) since the description of the item is not too indicative if wheat is an ingredient or not. However, for the rest of the groups, the numbers should be more representative.
The fact that “unknown” Category represents such a large volume of tests has been a source of vexation for me. I suspect these are likely almost all of Canadian origin, though perhaps procured in bulk without a container or a label marking the country of origin, and hence entered as unknown by the CFIA staff. Therefore, to make better sense of the breakdown based on regions, I am going to place unknown together with Canada and call it Canada+ in these studies.
Regarding other regions away from North America, only one subgroup item, Pasta, has a reasonable number (51). So that one might be analyzed to see if Pasta coming from overseas is any better than local produce. That is not yet covered in this blog.
Table-B shows how man of the tests for some of the subgroups had a reading above zero, how many of the screenings showed positive, how many negative, and the percentages of clean and dirty results. Since I assume (to be confirmed) that the ‘positive’ results of the more economical ‘glyphosate screening’ tests have been followed up with further and more expensive tests for the concentration, these were ignored, while the negative results where counted, for the percentages. Thus, the total number of samples were those of the first (>0) and third (negative) column. Thus, the percentage of dirty samples for pizza would represent the ration of 301 to (301+11), or 97.8%. This too might alter a bit after cross checking ore details from CFIA, especially about AMPA readings.
However, one can already guess that the general readings for wheat products are really bad with regard to glyphosate contamination.
Then comes the next table, Table-C, at left, with blue headers. This gives the average ppb figures of glyphosate (& AMPA) for each subgroup. As you can see, the numbers for Wheat Bran has gone through the roof. I should be checking with some experts on this, but suspect the reason for this to be that the best sink for the desiccated glyphosate is the outer layer of the wheat, i.e. the bran, and thus it is here that most of the glyphosate resides. The numbers fall off sharply in flour and germ. I am a bit puzzled by the reasonably low figure of whole wheat grains (bottom most item), and wonder if that because it includes items that are not really whole grain, but misrepresented or misunderstood by me. I should be looking into it further.
How about organic?
The last column in Table-C (ppb Organic) shows the basic difference between conventional or organic. Bran is a good example. Average ppb overall is over a thousand, but for its Organic variety, the average is just 1.9. In comparison, Organic wheat flour (10.7 ppb) does not fare as well, though it is still a lot lower than standard wheat flour. An so the list goes. Two subgroups, Wheat Germ and Pizza, did not have a single organic sample, therefore its ppb glyphosate for the organic label could not be calculated, and has been blacked out.
But the issue of bran really stands out. Since a lot of bread are made of bran, and because bran has been a preferred source of nutrient for some due to its high fibre content etc, and absence of bread as a tested group is more vexing. Table-D is based on the last but one column of Table-B.
And that brings up the this last table with red headers, showing what percentage of which subgroups of wheat contain glyphosate. As one can see, most all of the subgroups have almost 90 percent or above tests proving presence of glyphosate, with the exception of couscous, which has around 80% samples contaminated. This, along with Table-C, also tells you that, for Wheat Bran, near hundred percent (97%) contains glyphosate and average doze of the poison is over a thousand. In short, there is virtually no way one could avoid high glyphosate dose if one consumes Wheat bran.
These last two tables form the basis for the first two graphs. The picture is not pretty.
Thanks for watching and sorry for bringing you gloomy news. I am merely a messenger, and have gone through considerable difficulties to get hold of the raw data from CFIA.
I write this preliminary findings with a heavy heart and a serious concern regarding young children that might get damaged or hurt by glyphosate in their infant cereal.
I am in the process of going through several thousands of records of foods tested by CFIA for glyphosate, and am cleaning up, or typing more explanatory comments in additional fields so that later sorting can be done with less hassle and more clarity. And in the process I have come across a group of records of foods that CFIA describes as Cereal – Infant. A total of 119 tests were recorded on them, some for just glyphosate screening, with positive or negative results, while others were specifically to measure amount of glyphosate or AMPA is ppm, which I converted to ppb.
There were basically only a few countries of origin for the baby cereals, USA, Canada, Unknown, Germany, Poland and Switzerland. The “unknown” category has vexed me throughout this study, and since its numbers are usually higher than all others, and since Canadian sample numbers (without adding the unknowns) are less than the US samples, I strongly suspect that all, or nearly all, of the “unknowns” are of local (Canadian) stock. As it is, I think it is a law for foods from foreign countries to be displayed accordingly. So, I have started adding the Unknown with the Canadian readings and calling the combined lot as Canada+.
So, now there were just five countries of origin – Canada+, USA, Germany, Poland and Switzerland.
The readings from these samples showed a stark and ominous contrast. High percentage of Baby cereals from Canada and USA were dirty, in the sense that they contained glyphosate (and/or AMPA) while baby cereals from Germany, Poland and Switzerland were all 100% clean. Of course the number of samples from these three countries were lower, with 3 from Germany, 13 from Poland and 5 from Switzerland. Canada+ had 64 tests on baby cereal while USA had 33. And 66 percent of all infant cereals from Canada+ and 61% of all infant cereals from the US had glyphosate. Thats like two out of every three tests. And none of the European varieties had any measurable glyphosate. The above table has been converted to a percentage chart below, which depicts the high prevalence of dirty results from North American baby foods.
This has been a major cause of shock for me. I shall be later going into these with more details, to see if specific kinds of infant cereals are worse than other kinds etc. I already found out that going with the “Organic” variety might be better, but not a guarantee of clean food.
The table below highlights the issue. 42% of all organic infant cereals from Canada+ as tested had glyphosate. That is almost one of out two organic infant cereals that were dirty. The corresponding figure for the US is 36% or about one out of three. Among the European samples, one did not need to check for organic labels – they were all clean with regard to glyphosate.
Although my work with this food group is not over, I decided to make a preliminary report, which is correct as far as whatever I have written goes, to the best of my knowledge. However, I shall be digging deeper to see if there is any identifiable pattern that might separate the clean ones from the dirty, among North American samples. Clearly, going with organic labelling alone is not good enough.
I found a few curious entries within the North American samples, which could be a give-away of its brand name. Three samples were described as Leapin’ Lemurs, Choco Chimp, and Koala Crisp. All of them were entered under infant cereals. I could not figure out what ingredients were used here, such as wheat, or oatmeal or rice etc, so I googled the names. It turned out, these are products by “Nature’s Path“. All three of them contained no glyphosate at all. So, out of this horror story, there was a sort of silver lining.
I don’t have an infant at home and I do not like to eat processed food any more. However, I am very aware and conscious of the fact that infants and kids are far more vulnerable to illness and auto-immune triggers due to their low body weight and insufficiently developed immune system.
So, for those that live in North America and must buy infant cereal, my preliminary advise would be one of the following:
Buy European infant cereal, especially from Poland, Germany or Switzerland
Or buy Nature’s Path products.
Press your local public servants to start testing locally sold infant cereals for glyphosate content and let the public know the results, including brand name and source of the sample. Refer to petition on this.
I shall be digging into this more later, since I am only at around 2,700th of the record out of over 7,800 of them, and since I am a bit down with a flue-like symptom with a sore throat and a fever.
Trying to do the best I can to complete the work by around April.
Thanks for reading. Be warned – Infant cereals are that much more important because infants are that much more vulnerable. There are no safe levels of glyphosate, so I am not getting bogged down with exact ppb numbers and considering all tests including the straight glyphosate screening tests that does not give amounts in ppm or ppm but merely indicates if result is positive or negative.
Those that are interested on why there are no safe levels of glyphosate and how the Canadian and US government uses old fashioned and inadequate methods for checking safety levels for glyphosate, consider checking up on Anthony Samsel on two separate issues:
In other words, EPA, Health Canada and the rest of the world needs to consider adding “enzymology” to the existing toxicology tests, before arriving at any conclusion on safety of glyphosate.
About Canada, Canada+ and Unknown
I am adding this section here as an answer to some questions raised by a reader, and also to address the issue from anybody else.
There are several reasons why I clubbed Canada with Unkown. These are:
Taking samples from within Canada, one would assume the largest bulk of reading would be of Canadian origin. However, in actuality, the largest bulk often is “unknown” followed by USA and then Canada comes third. This does not make sense to me. Though in the case of this infant baby cereals, the numbers are reversed, with “unknowns” constituting a slightly lower sample number among the big three. I think I can guess the reason.
Having a huge block of records without origin is absurd for any data collection and is perhaps a sign of sloppiness among the CFIA staff..
There are laws about disclosing country of origin of food items, and since Canada actively protects its internal agricultural market from competition from abroad and doe snot allow free trade in agricultural goods produced in, say, USA, that Canada also produces, to freely cross the border, I suspect most of these unknown food samples are of local produce, and that CFIA staff might have done a sloppy job of describing bulk foods that do not come in a package and therefore origin is not printed anywhere, but was likely displayed at the store where it was collected. And that is perhaps one reason why, in this particular case of infant baby cereals, the unknown category represents slightly smaller number of samples than Canadian and US ones. Most baby cereals are packaged foods, and usually not sold in bulk without a container.
This phenomena, of unknown samples usually outnumbering both USA and Canada, and Canada being the third largest source of supplies of foods collected inside Canada, applies to all other categories where the foods are not clearly processed and packaged, but are sold whole..
Lastly, if I keep Canada and ‘Unknown’ separate, then the glyphosate contamination for Canadian foods, including baby cereals turn out to be horribly and unbelievably contaminated. 87% of all Canadian infant cereals fall under that Category.
Attached here is a table of the infant baby cereals for only three countries, to highlight my point – Unknown, Canada and USA, where Canada and unknown are kept separate. As you an see, the results bode much worse for Canada, with only 13% clean and 87% dirty. Another way of looking at it might be, if you are buying infant cereals, and if you can find “Canada” in the label somewhere – don’t buy it. Chances of you getting a slow dose of glyphosate would be seven our of eight !