In this first of three part interview, on items to be covered in a new article that Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff are currently writing, Samsel discloses his research on how glyphosate gets into all parts of horses that are fed glyphosate laced diet, including its hooves, which caused the hooves to collapse and not carry the weight of the horses.
Research on horses covered their blood, urine, feces, hooves and even semen. Glyphosate gets into the blood and can get into all tissues and all parts of the horse biology wherever glycine is needed. This indicates the near certainty that this is also happening to all other mammals including humans.
He got fingernail samples of human patients that are suffering from Scleroderma, and he found presence of glyphosate in their finger nails.
This ability of glyphosate to penetrate deep into our biology and integrate itself in places where it is unwanted, can cause an near endless chain of illnesses. What is even more surprising, is that most of these observations were already done back in the 1970s by Monsanto and Dupont. Anthony Samsel reconfirmed that by independent analysis that this indeed is the case and is also making the subject public, 45 years after they were first observed by the promoters of the product – and kept from our scrutiny. This hiding of the safety data on glyphosate, in my view, makes the approval of glyphosate illegal, apart from being extremely dangerous for all life on the planet.
To: Minister of Agriculture, BC, Honourable Ms Lana Popham,
Dated: Thursday, October 5, 2017
Subject: Request to see you regarding banning of glyphosate from British Columbian agriculture
This is a follow up on the earlier email sent to you on the 28th of August, 2017, on this subject, which started a petition initiated by me on change.org, to request your government to ban glyphosate from British Columbian agriculture. The reasons for the petition were covered in that letter, but I shall take the liberty of mentioning three most important of them. These are
Ottawa has registered glyphosate for use in Canadian agriculture forty years ago. Yet, till date, safety documents that are supposed to prove the biocide to be harmless to us have not been disclosed. By safety documents I mean results of actual tests done on animals exposed to glyphosate and their health parameters measured, over their lifetime, and compared against identical animals living identical lifestyle and eating identical foods but without glyphosate. Study of this comparison is what constitutes actual evidence if the biocide is harmful or harmless to higher mammals. Instead of this document, we are constantly dumped with reports on third party opinions of who said what and where, about glyphosate. All these third party views are just noise.
According to our understanding of the law, it is illegal to allow release of a product while withholding documents that prove its safety.
Also, without such safety data, any maximum residue limit (MRL) set by the government with regard to glyphosate contamination in food is unsubstantiated, and in our view, also illegal.
My analysis of near 8,000 foods collected in Canada and tested by CFIA (titled Poison Foods of North America) shows how industrially grown seed based foods produced in North America contain by far the highest concentration of glyphosate in the world, and how food samples collected in Western Canada proved to contain higher concentration of glyphosate than even foods collected elsewhere in Canada.
Repeated attempts from my end to get the Ottawa government, both under PM Harper and now under PM Trudeau, to get Health Canada, to disclose hitherto hidden safety documents on glyphosate have failed or is going through a slow motion dragging of feet spanning multiple years of frustratingly endless chain of correspondence. Support from a handful of sympathetic MPs, all of then NDP, has failed to nudge Ottawa out of its studied stupor on this issue.
All this makes this petition not just a casual matter or health concern, but a life and death issue for the long term well being of the people.
A month has passed since this petition was created, and as of today, it has 16,585 supporters. People from 55 countries have supported the idea of British Columbia banning glyphosate from agriculture. Out of these, Canadians alone constitute 97%.
Within Canada, support came from all provinces, of which the top four are British Columbia with 6,614, Ontario with 4,940, Quebec with 1,626 and Alberta with 1,394 supporters. Many of them are waiting to see if BC succeeds so that they can take take a page out of this effort and hope to repeat it in their provinces.
I request that you grant us an hour to see you at your office, to present all the details of the petition, its list of supporters, their comments and all the textual and video updates made on the petition on a DVD disk to you.
I also request you to consider allowing me to bring a small delegation, of say six notable persons that may give their views on the matter, people such as retired Agriculture Canada scientists, or committed campaigners against Canadians being exposed to synthetic biocides.
We consider this unbelievable concentration of glyphosate in our food to be the front and centre most alarming of all the myriad problems that mankind faces across the world and in Canada today, and we are not going to give up our efforts to push back at what we consider to be an illegally approved clandestine slow poisoning of the masses, especially those that are uninformed or too poor to afford organic foods.
If you need assistance from the people to explore or initiate steps to restrict glyphosate from our food, you will not find more dedicated helpers than us.
If you agree, please indicate a date and time when we might present our petition and our views to you.
This letter is being sent as an email. It will also be printed, signed and physically mailed to you. Finally, this letter will also be read live on camera, as an update to the petition itself, and will be included in the DVD disk to be prepared for you.
Subject : Bill C-291 – regarding labelling of genetically modified food.
Honourable Ms Qualtrough,
I write to you with regard to bill C-291 which aimed to amend the Food and Drug Act and include a clause to mandate labelling of genetically modified foods in Canada. This bill got defeated in the parliament with 216 Nay votes and 67 Yea votes. You voted against it, as did virtually all of the conservatives and most of the liberal MPs. A handful of Liberal MPs voted in favour of labelling GMOs, Honourable liberal MP Terry Beach of Burnaby BC being one of them. This letter is copied to him since he is referred here.
Common sense tells me that GMO aught to have been labelled, irrespective of what science says about it, of if one prefers to eat or avoid genetically modified food. It is the right of the people, I feel, to know what they are eating, and GMO is one such information that aught to have been identified to consumers.
But I do not write this letter regarding what I feel aught to have been or what my idea of common sense is.
I write this letter for two specific reasons. These are
1) To inform you that in my view you have violated the duty you were to perform when you got elected to represent us, by making your own decision to vote against the bill instead of checking with your constituents first.
You have often held meetings in Delta to gather public opinion on various issues. I have received invitations from your office to attend such meetings and have attended a few and voiced my concerns there. I presume the reason you hold such meetings is to gauge the opinions and feelings of the constituents and to reflect them back in Ottawa.
However, you failed to invite us to express our opinion on this important issue of labelling GMOs which has great relevance to food safety and general health as well as food security, preservation of biodiversity and independence from corporate ownership of living organisms. How I know you avoided checking public opinion is that you failed to hold a meeting on this and I did not receive an invitation from your office to attend any such meeting.
2) Since in my view you may have violated the sacrosanct duty that you were constitutionally required to perform, I believe I may have a reason to question your suitability in performing the task of a public servant to protect our interest. I therefore might decide to perform my citizens duty, to alert voters that you may have assumed dictatorial powers and decided to make unilateral decisions on what the people of Delta should know about their food.
In my book, only two kinds of persons can make such unilateral decisions for the people. These two are – a dictator, or an emperor. I do not believe you are either, though I suspect you might have forgotten what your specific duty is.
I write this letter to you not expecting an answer per se. I know politicians are usually quite good at staying silent on questions that they would rather not answer.
I am nonetheless writing this to publicize and circulate it among voters within my capacity, and also to set an example for other citizens, in Delta and outside, to take a queue and question their own respective representatives about what authority they had in making decisions without checking with the people first.
While I do not expect any response, I shall be glad to receive one, to discuss how you voted against this bill. Either way, this letter is going to be public.
If I do not succeed in changing your behaviour with regard to voting on sensitive bills, I sure hope to change views of a few of the citizen voters with regard to their perception of their representatives in our parliament.
If you find this letter a bit harsh, you will forgive me, since I do not feel particularly amicable after seeing how you voted against this bill.
10891 Cherry Lane Delta BC.
A response received from the office of Ms Carla Qualtrough. This is a good omen. Among all the letters I have sent to various MPs, MLAs and Mayors and councillors in Canada,very few will come back with a response.
However, this is an example that, if one tries hard enough, one might get a few responses time to time. More importantly, perhaps this is a sign that if enough folks approach their representatives, there will be a collective pressure that might translate into positive movements in our government to represent issue of vital importance for our people.
Bill C291 (Labelling of GMO) What the people might do about it
This was the bill, for mandatory labelling of GMO, that was hugely defeated in the Canadian parliament recently, because most of the conservatives and liberals voted against it, while all of NDP, Bloc Québécois and a handful of Liberals voted for it.
The full list of who voted which way, is available on Govt. web site, and I have downloaded it, converted it to pdf and uploaded it in my website for reference.
Idea is to check how our elected representatives voted and challenge them when they voted against it – and encourage other people to do the same, because of a simple require of our constitution – the MPs were NOT supposed to vote according to their feelings or bias, but were SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE WISHES OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
In short, if they were unsure of public sentiment, (and polls say an overwhelming percentage of the people wanted GMO labelling), they were supposed to open a channel of communication to assess feelings of the voters of their riding and then vote on the bill accordingly.
My Liberal MP neither checked with the people (I got no notification from her that she was at all interested in my view) and went and voted against the bill.
So, here is one more example of where Canadians might write to their MPs and demand on know what right they had to make unilateral decision without without checking views of the people they represent. According to my understanding of the Canadian constitution, these MPs had absolutely no right to make either an unilateral decision, or to go with the party boss, or to be influenced by industry.
However, it is still our (citizen’s) duty to make this work, and to either force a change in the behaviour of our MPs, or to see that they soon become unemployed politicians.
If the citizens are not ready to take back control of politics of this nation – the citizens do not deserve a functioning democracy.
I shall be writing to my MP, for sure. I shall also be sharing it with the people.
For those that wish to check the link vote list for Bio C-291 – click on the above picture.
Remember Canadians :
Democracy is NOT A FREE LUNCH. We have to earn it.
And while you are at it, you might copy your letter to the MP that sponsored this bill, Pierre-Luc Dusseault of Sherbrooke, Quebec at Pierre-Luc.Dusseault@parl.gc.ca
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.
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.
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.
Some of these charts will end up in the book, though values might change a bit as more of the records are transcribed.
The large volume of tests on foods of “unknown” origin is becoming vexing. I suspect these are mostly local food, both for the sheer number of samples and also similarity of items and readings with Canada.
So, here I clubbed them together under the name Canada+.
The earlier pie chart was about flour made from black beans. It was made with only US samples in it, since there were very few samples from other countries while a lot were from USA alone. It showed only 9% of all black bean flour from USA was glyphosate free, and 91% had some of it.
And now we have here another chart, a column chart, and covers two countries – USA and Canada+, about the same black beans, but sold as is and not as flour. Total sample number was large, around a hundred between the two nations. Canada+ had about twice as many as US samples which sounded right, for samples being collected in Canada.
The data to be converted into visual charts were not the actual readings per se, but the percentage occurrence of event counts, when glyphosate tests satisfied one of the conditions. The conditions were 1) when a measurable amount of glyphosate was detected, 2) when presence of glyphosate was detected but amount could not be measured and 3) when no presence of glyphosate could be detected. These percentage values of the event counts were tabulated for two regions : USA and Canada+. The chart was then made of the figures, to show how much percentage of black beans from each regions was clean and without glyphosate, and how much was dirty.
In the chart, the bottom section was for the measurable percent, label starting with “>0”. This section represents the high value section, where glyphosate content is too high. This chart assumes no glyphosate is good glyphosate and that there is no safe limit.
The next section was called +ve where result proved positive, or glyphosate was detected, but could not be measured. The last, top most category was -ve or negative, representing percentage of sample that had no detectable glyphosate.
As the chart shows – American readings are better for unprocessed black beans. But even here, more than half of the samples had some glyphosate.
For Canada+ the figures were much worse. Seven out of eight samples would contain glyphosate. In my view Canada becomes a highly toxic source, probably the worst one in the world, with regard to glyphosate contamination in black beans, and USA is next in line. I would not buy black beans from either country unless it is organic, and if I cannot find organic or cannot afford it, I shall not eat black beans. As to other nations, I have not seen much test records from them yet, so cannot comment.
The green tick mark and the red cross marks were added for visual guide and clarity, and to drive the point home.
As Anthony Samsel tells me – a picture is worth a thousand words, and I have already type over 500 words to explain it !!
I prepared another chart about chickpea flour, and was aiming to pen a small and sad story on this looming tragedy.
This is a major primary food source for people of India, primarily many of the of low wage day labourers of India. They take a fistful of chickpea flour, add a spoonful of water, knead it into a thickish paste, add perhaps a sliver of onion, a touch of salt and a few specs of crushed dried red chilli, and roll it in their palms to turn it into a ball, about the size of a tennis ball – and that is their morning brunch with a glass of water – before going to work. As a child, and also as an adult in more recent years, I have often watched them preparing this meal, sitting on a mat on the ground.
Since the word(s) chick pea, chickpea and garbanzo are often intermixed in the records and both chickpea and garbanzo mentioned in the same product description at times, I combined the chickpea with the garbanzo, for this story. Also, a huge number of samples are marked as of “unknown” origin, which I suspect are all local (Canadian), so I joined them with Canada’s own chickpea flour and called it Canada+.
Dropping a few countries with only one or two samples, I had India with 10, Canada+ with 64 and USA with 9. And I made this chart, based on percentages of >0 (high presence), +ve (positive glyphosate presence) and -ve (negative or no detectable presence).
It turns out, percentages of clean chickpea flour (with no detectable glyphosate) are:
India : 40%
Canada+ : 17%
USA : zero
So, flours made from black bean and chickpea/garbanzo, originating from three countries with reasonable sample numbers are suspect, of which North American samples are arguably much worse than the Indian one, but India too is catching up, with less than half its flour remaining uncontaminated. Also, since the CFIA data does not give brand name or more pinpointed source of their samples, there is no realistic way for a consumer to separate the clean chickpea flour made in Canada or imported from India, from the dirty lot. So buying chickpea flour from these countries become a slow motion game of Russian roulette.
This is a developing tragedy of global implication. And no matter what the government or the industry claims, there are no safe levels of glyphosate. Add to that the fact that hiding safety test documents on glyphosate while allowing its use, may be legally indefensible.
Corn has been conspicuous in the CFIA not by its absence, but by absence of glyphosate from it. We understand most of the corn grown on industrial scale in north America as well as elsewhere may be RoundUp ready and laced with glyphosate. And yet, it shows up with relatively low concentration in comparison with some other crops such as say wheat or chick pea.
Corn story, on around 6,000 CFIA test records
While the reason for this deserves to be investigated separately, the CFIA readings as they stand, can also throw light on country specific data as well as data on which kinds of corn based food shows up with how much glyphosate. The table here is based on country profile from some 250 odd tests done on corn based foods out of about 6,000 total tests from CFIA.
The largest block among countries is, again, unknown. I suspect most of these to be of Canadian origin. Anyhow, the general average glyphosate and AMPA count per sample of corn based food tested by CFIA that originated from Canada or “Unknown” are 3. The country at the top of the list is USA, followed by Italy and Mexico.
For USA, glyphosate starts showing up in some corn starch, and a lot of corn based pre-cooked meal, also often described as called cornmeal in one word.
In the case of Italy, there are many samples of corn based food with no glyphosate. However, their average seems to have been spoiled by a few cases of food items identified as San Zenone Organic Corn pasta, which show over a hundred ppb. So, in the case of this particular food description, even organic is contaminated. Many other kinds of corn based organic and conventional pasta, such as Penne Rigate, gluten free organic corn pasta – are without glyphosate. However, some but not all of the same Penne Rigate, but without the “organic” in it, has glyphosate.
Mexico had a near perfect reading of zero glyphosate in foods originating from there. But it has been spoiled by some corn based foods such as taco shells,tortilla and corn chips.
Canada + Unknown
Among corn based foods from “unknown” and Canada, tortilla, chips, corn flakes and corn bran are among the culprits, having detectable amounts of glyphosate.
Thailand, Philippines & China
Although the sample base is smaller, corn based foods from these countries as tested by CFIA appear to contain no measurable glyphosate or AMPA at all. Out of these, China’s story could be controversial since it is a heavy producer and consumer of glyphosate laced food. We are told that China also grows smaller quantities of organic food and is very careful in ensuring that only organic stuff is exported so that their market and reputation is not spoilt.
Glyphosate Screen Positive
Apart from all above, a large number of glyphosate screen test shows positive (as against negative) for many food types and that includes corn. Most of the positive results come from samples originating from the US, with much lesser numbers from other nations.
You can check a short pdf list of Glyphosate Screen positive items on a related issue – flours made from beans, by clicking here. It also shows the high prevalence of such samples originating from the United States.
Data transcribed from the original CFIA records often shed light on items of great concern, either by their presence or their absence
Food items that are getting more worrisome by their absence from the CFIA test records so far received, and that includes over 7,800 records, are bread, sugar, and cooking oils including Canola.
And then there are food items that are included in the CFIA records, but show test results that are surprising, and points to the need for further investigation.
Above table refers.
First item is wheat. As it happens, wheat did not show up in the first couple of thousand test records which are sort of listed chronologically, with the first records being the first batch of samples tested, back in 2015, and the last batches were the most recent tests, going to the end of 2016.
Considering the fact that wheat was mostly being desiccated by glyphosate prior harvest, and therefore is one grain that is expected to have high concentration of the molecule, I was highly surprised by not finding wheat as I began transcribing the data.
However, a few thousand records down the line, wheat started appearing, and in really large number. As expected, glyphosate was present and in much higher concentration than in many other food grains, and especially in comparison with rice.
However, not all foods are clearly marked with the cereal or grain that it is made of. Examples are cookies, biscuits, cake, pasta, pizza and the like. So it became necessary to create additional fields or columns, to describe some of the ingredients the food was made of, in order to properly indicate the probable source of the contamination, if there was glyphosate found in it. Also, the same food was described differently in different samples, including using native non-english names, which had to be translated in these additional columns for clarity and proper grouping.
And so, while glyphosate readings were high based on average, there was now a further need to look through the pile and separate out some primary groups to see which one was too high while another might be low, so that readers and consumers might be able to figure out, even within the Wheat group, which kinds are having more glyphosate than others.
And with the huge test numbers, going over a thousand, there is room for a lot of scrutiny here.
Chick pea and garbanzo beans.
These have been a major surprise as some of their glyphosate readings are through the roof. The table above does not include all the chickpea and most of the garbanzo beans, which are similar to chick pea and at times their names have been interchanged in the product description. In other samples both the terms have been used on the same item.
I came to know from different sources in USA and Canada about the practice of desiccating chickpea and garbanzo crops in USA as well as in Canada is the likely cause of the test results.
This item is linked with a wider group of legumes that fall under the category of lentils. India is a heavy consumer and a large producer of lentils. But its domestic demand is reportedly outstripping its production and India is looking to import more lentils. This may be part of the the reason for industrial scale production of the crops in North America, where the crop is desiccated by glyphosate. According to some scientists, if glyphosate is applied for desiccation, the only real active sink for this systemic chemical to go would be to the seed! Some of the scientists are consulted by farming groups in USA and I am told they would like to pass it on these CFIA findings to the growers for their attention.
Other beans with higher readings
Some of the other beans that will be subjected to greater scrutiny are kidney beans, Mung and white beans. Some have high sampling and test numbers with relatively higher ppb readings, while others have smaller sampling and even higher readings. The main thrust would be to see if one can distinguish these crops from one country to another, and if produce from one place is better than those from another, with regard to glyphosate poisoning. As of now, it looks like certified organic is the only sure way of avoiding much of the glyphosate in this group.
Soy Bean and Corn
This two groups are going to be put to some more scrutiny mainly because their readings are so low. We know of RoundUp ready soy being grown in massive scale in North America, Argentina, Brazil etc. We know of it being used in all kinds of human and animal food, from soy milk to tofu to cattle feed. And yet, the soy based items tested by CFIA is perplexingly devoid of glyphosate. This needs to be investigated. Was the sampling done selectively, or could the method used for detection be faulty and give rise to false negatives and reduced indication of its presence so that it appears to be safe?
We have learned that once glyphosate gets mis-incorporated into animal proteins, it does not show up in spectrograms in its usual place and this can lead to false negatives and erroneous results. We are also learning that the traditional method of using acidulated methanol as a pre-test preparatory procedure is not useful for preparing a sample for testing glyphosate, because while methanol opens up the proteins and releases its glyphosate, that glyphosate reacts with methanol to form compounds that again evade detection, no matter what kind of detection method is applied, i.e. chromatography or ELISA.
I learned that if better methods are used to release glyphosate from these protein compounds, such as proteolysis, then there has been cases of 60 to 120 fold increase in detection of glyphosate.
If that argument is true for animal proteins, could they also be true for plant proteins, especially with regard to soy and corn ? These are areas that I would like to be further educated by scientists.
Also, some of my future correspondence with the Canadian Government might including finding out what methods the labs used for detection of glyphosate in proteins.
Just like Soy Beans, we also know about RoundUp ready Corn and corn being the base ingredient in a very wide range of foods. CFIA has several hundred tests done on hundreds of corn based foods and yet, the average reading is very low.
This is puzzling and needs more scrutiny.
These are preliminary indication of work to do, as far as information can be gathered, on these issues.