Monthly Archives: February 2017

Glyphosate in tofu

Posted on by

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:

  1. Just one record – negative
  2. Two records, one for ‘positive’ and another for ppm glyphosate
  3. 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?

At this stage, your guess may be as good as mine.

 

Wheat is bad, wheat bran is worst.

Posted on by

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.

Graph 1

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.

Graph 2

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

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

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.

Table-C

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.

Table-D

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.

tony mitra

 

North American infant cereals are contaminated with glyphosate

Posted on by

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 !

Glyphosate destroys our digestive enzymes

Posted on by

Anthony Samsel speaks with Tony Mitra about his latest work on glyphosate – that, apart from causing all other troubles, it also is responsible for damaging our digestive enzymes, so that we cannot even digest the food we eat, and the resultant undigested matter causes all kinds of problems including triggering auto-immune response and can lead to illnesses including serious and life threatening ones. He continues to write scientific papers on his findings, and part of this is pending publication in a science paper soon, co-authored with Dr. Stephanie Seneff.

Monsanto or Dupont apparently did not know this when they did their tests a few decades ago, since this was not known knowledge at the time, on exactly how our enzymes might be affected in presence of synthetic chemicals and how all this ties up with our health and immune systems.

Now that this is being revealed, largely through Anthony Samsel’s investigation and testing of digestive enzymes in presence of glyphosate, using multiple test methods like ELIA as well as liquid and gas chromatography, he is able to conclude that glyphosate can prevent some digestive enzymes from functioning properly and this is another pathway to a cascade of diseases.

Not just that, Monsanto and the regulatory authorities such as EPA should not depend on just standard toxicological tests to determine safety of herbicides like glyphosate. Such investigations should include at least enzymology as well. And any chemical that is able to impair our digestive system, should not be in our food in any level of concentration. Therefore, there is no safe levels in glyphosate and it should not be in our food or in our environment.

This is a 17 minute recording made today while I interviewed Anthony Samsel.

Note from Anthony Samsel

Tony,
 
This is companion material to my statement in the new video about ingesting Glyphosate at every meal being like unnecessarily taking the PHOSPHONATE BONIVA  …….  These symptoms of BONIVA begin with digestion and follow the result of the chemicals effects upon entrance to and within the extracellular matrix
 
GLYPHOSATE is no different it acts like a pharmaceutical enzyme blocker (inhibitor) >>>>>
 

Side effects triggered by Boniva include: bronchitis and arthralgia and myalgia.  Below is a comprehensive list of adverse effects.

More common:

  • Bladder pain
  • bloody or cloudy urine
  • chest pain
  • cough producing mucus
  • difficult, burning, or painful urination
  • difficulty with breathing
  • fever or chills
  • frequent urge to urinate
  • lower back or side pain
  • nervousness
  • pounding in the ears
  • shortness of breath
  • slow or fast heartbeat
  • sneezing
  • sore throat
  • tightness in the chest

Less common:

  • Bloody or cloudy urine
  • body aches or pain
  • congestion
  • difficulty with swallowing
  • dizziness
  • dryness of the throat
  • fast heartbeat
  • frequent urge to urinate
  • hives
  • hoarseness
  • itching
  • numbness
  • puffiness or swelling of the eyelids or around the eyes, face, lips, or tongue
  • runny nose
  • skin rash
  • tender, swollen glands in the neck
  • tingling
  • unusual tiredness or weakness
  • voice changes

Incidence not known:

  • Abdominal or stomach cramps
  • blurred vision or other change in vision
  • bone, joint, or muscle pain, severe and occasionally incapacitating
  • confusion
  • convulsions
  • eye redness
  • eye tenderness
  • heavy jaw feeling
  • irregular heartbeats
  • large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, or sex organs
  • loosening of a tooth
  • muscle cramps in the hands, arms, feet, legs, or face
  • noisy breathing
  • numbness and tingling around the mouth, fingertips, or feet
  • pain, swelling, or numbness in the mouth or jaw
  • sensitivity to light
  • severe eye pain
  • tearing
  • tremor
  • unusual pain in the thighs, groin, or hips

If any of the following symptoms of overdose occur while taking ibandronate, get emergency help immediately:

Symptoms of overdose:

  • Acid or sour stomach
  • belching
  • bone pain
  • burning feeling in the chest or stomach
  • heartburn
  • indigestion
  • loss of appetite
  • pain or burning in the throat
  • sores or ulcers
  • stomach discomfort, upset, or pain
  • tenderness in the stomach area
  • vomiting
  • white spots on the lips or tongue or inside the mouth

Minor Side Effects

Some of the side effects that can occur with ibandronate may not need medical attention. As your body adjusts to the medicine during treatment these side effects may go away. Your health care professional may also be able to tell you about ways to reduce or prevent some of these side effects. If any of the following side effects continue, are bothersome or if you have any questions about them, check with your health care professional:

More common:

  • Diarrhea
  • ear congestion
  • headache
  • loss of voice
  • pain in the extremity (arms and legs)

Less common:

  • Cough
  • difficulty having a bowel movement (stool)
  • difficulty with moving
  • discouragement
  • feeling of constant movement of self or surroundings
  • feeling sad or empty
  • general feeling of discomfort or illness
  • irritability
  • joint pain
  • lack or loss of strength
  • lightheadedness
  • loss of interest or pleasure
  • muscle aches and pain
  • muscle stiffness
  • pain, swelling, or redness in the joints
  • sensation of spinning
  • shivering
  • stuffy nose
  • sweating
  • tooth disorder
  • trouble concentrating
  • trouble sleeping
Anthony
 
Anthony Samsel
Research Scientist / Consultant
SEAPHS, Samsel Environmental and Public Health Services
P.O. Box 131
Deerfield, NH 03037

Glyphosate warning on black bean and chickpea flour

Posted on by

Black Bean Flour – a note of caution

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 !!

Chickpea story
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.

Tony Mitra.

Glyphosate in corn

Posted on by

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.

USA
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.

Italy
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
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.

Thats it for now.

Some CFIA results need more scrutiny

Posted on by

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.

Wheat
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.

Comments welcome.

Glyphosate in Mung Beans

Posted on by

A friend had made a comment based on an earlier Facebook post of mine about glyphosate in beans from the CFIA test records. That post showed a high presence of glyphosate (+AMPA), showing concern about Mung Beans, which had higher average glyphosate (+AMPA) count than many other types of beans.

Well, we too use Mung Beans at home. We had two varieties. One was organic sprouting Mung Beans – mostly from Mum’s (Canada) and I suspected they’d be very clean. But this was in smaller quantity and I used them only for eating sprouts.

The larger amount was used by the wife for making dal, or lentil soup Dal has been a favourite staple of mine, to be had with rice, as a source of protein, helping to stay away from factory farmed animals.

So I looked into the individual tests of each Mung Bean, to prepare this table, and sorted according to origin of the Mung Bean sample. All readings are in ppb.

India – presumably the largest producer and consumer of Mung Beans, is totally missing from this table. So, either Canada imports no Mung Beans from Canada, or somehow they have not been tested. I shall look further into this later on. However, I have been told by some notables in Canada, that some Indian farmers have started growing lentils in Canada, using industrial methods (i.e. desiccated with glyphosate) for export back to India because India’s constantly rising demand is overtaking its local production. If that is true, then Indian’s might be getting more of Canadian toxic Mung Beans than Canadians getting any Indian variety. Anyhow, I intend to look into the Mung Bean packages next time I visit a store.

Thailand – all their food has so far been very clean, and Mung Bean is no exception. Therefore, if it is not certified organic, but an import from Thailand, you may still be fairly sure that it is clean as far as glyphosate in concerned.

China – this has been a puzzle throughout the CFIA test records. China is the largest producer and exporter of glyphosate as well local consumer. But, as I-Wan-Chen has informed us, they also grow smaller quantity of organic food and has been careful in exporting only the cleaner varieties of food in order not to lose export market. Also, many importers actually visit Chinese farms and take samples of export-crops directly for their own tests. So, if the Mung Bean is from China and being sold in Canada, be cautious but you might be safe here.

Unknown – I suspect these are either all Canadian, or Canadian + US. Anyhow, these are no good, except if it is certified organic. In other words, if you are not sure where the Mung Bean came from, and if it is not organic – my advise is to stay away. If it is organic – go ahead and buy it.

Austalia – if you find Australian Mung Beans – don’t even give it to your dog.

Also, if anybody living in India is reading this – be extremely careful of buying any Mung Beans imported from Canada/USA or Australia.  In general, if it is an English Speaking Anglo-Saxon nation – You may watch their movies, or their sports on TV, but don’t eat their Mung Beans.

Glyphosate in meat – a Trojan Horse?

Posted on by

This blog is a place holder for my evolving views on glyphosate in food, and in particular, glyphosate in meat. This is to help me compose a book I am writing on the subject based on over 7,800 records of foods collected in Canada and tested by CFIA, a copy of which was sent to me recently.

For the first half of the tested records, a few food items were totally missing, such as conventional wheat, bread, meat, poultry or milk. Glyphosate was expected to be present in samples of such foods produced in North America, since industrial scale farming of crops and livestock was closely intertwined with industrial pesticides expected to be in the crop as well as the animal feed.

Anyhow, in the later part of the records, based on samples collected from around mid-2016, a small numbers of samples of wheat, wheat products, as well as some meat products that contained beef, pork and chicken started showing up.

This chart was first prepared containing the handful of individual sample foods containing chicken, from the first 4,500 odd records. As the table shows, the number of samples is too small to make a good general prediction. We wish many more samples of this food will come up in the later half of the records that are not yet fully transcribed.

The initial glyphosate (+AMPA) content in those foods were rather low. Some had trace (positive) amount and some even had none. This brought the average ppb content of all samples with chicken in them, to 19. I was puzzled by this low figure since most of the chicken raised and sold in North America were factory farmed, laced not only with antibiotics, which was not covered in this test, but also genetically modified RoundUp Ready crops laced with glyphosate.

I knew from studies made by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff that glyphosate, apart from being a chelator and depriving the consumer of mineral nutrients from the food, and apart from it being a major adversary and destroyer of vitally important gut bacteria through its anti-biotic function, it was also an analog of glycine and would thus slip past their immune system to enter cell biology and be mistakenly picked up by the animal’s cell RNA and eventually be mis-incorporated into animal proteins. This proteins where glycine has been substituted by glyphosate, would be malfunctioning proteins and this would be a pathway to a cascade of diseases depending on where those rogue proteins ended up in the animal.

More importantly, the same defective animal proteins, if eaten by humans, is also likely to slip past our own immune system and in tern be mis-incorporated into our own biology as rogue proteins that becomes a trigger for our own series of autoimmune diseases.

Some of those issues have been covered in earlier blogs such as this one () and more will be covered as most reports are published by the scientists Samsel and Seneff.

But the low glyphosate readings in the animals puzzled me, of which this chart about the chicken is just one instance.

So I asked the scientists about it. In the process, I got to know a few things about testing glyphosate in meat. I have the permission of scientists Samsel and Seneff to quote them, so what produce them here:

From Stephanie Seneff

Your work is so important in getting this information out to the public, Tony.  I am really impressed with how much you have done already with this data.  We just went shopping for some eggplant after I read about the zero glyphosate levels in it!

One thing I would like to say about the meats is a concern I have that the glyphosate may be embedded in the proteins and not properly extracted prior to measurement. Monsanto found that they had to do extensive proteolysis in order to free up glyphosate that they knew was present because they had radiolabelled it.

This problem is well known for other toxic chemicals that are non-coding amino acids. For example, proteolysis resulted in a 60 to 120 fold increased level of BMAA, a non-coding amino acid analogue of proline.

Here’s a paragraph from the newest paper by Anthony and me  (still under review):

“There have been inconsistent results in measuring the levels of BMAA in different tissue samples, but this has been explained recently by the realization that any BMAA which is incorporated into proteins may be missed in the analysis without sufficient proteolysis. Ince et al. wrote: `When the insoluble, protein-containing fraction following TCA (trichloroacetic acid) extraction is further hydrolysed to release BMAA from protein, there is a further pool of ‘protein bound’ BMAA that is present in a ratio of between 60:1 and 120:1 compared with the pool of ‘free BMAA’.” [Ince, p. 348].

Ince, P.G.& Codd, G.A. Return of the cycad hypothesis – does the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/parkinsonism dementia complex (ALS/PDC) of Guam have new implications for global health? Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology 31 (2005) 345-353.

Animal protein with glyphosate embedded in it can be predicted to be extremely allergenic (worse than plant protein), and I think it could be a major source of the epidemic in autoimmune diseases that we’re seeing. This is especially worrisome because animal proteins are more likely to match up with human proteins through molecular mimicry and cause trouble with autoimmunity.

Stephanie
Stephanie Seneff
Senior Research Scientist
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

From Anthony Samsel

Tony,

Let me add to what Stephanie just said.  All meat and fowl is contaminated with Glyphosate as well as other glyphosate  related molecule like N-Acetylglyphosate from some GE’d corn and soy…  Glyphosate esters, salts and metabolites as well as reaction products i.e. five nitrosamines of Glyphosate are also present.

As far as the numbers Canada found in meat they are too low based on DUPONT and MONSANTO studies.  I have numbers from some of my lab work with beef and pork much higher as well as glyphosate in collagens from animals like 120 ppb + ….

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….

Glyphosate reacts with methanol forming an ester of glyphosate which does not show up in the chromatogram where you would find glyphosate….  so, the lab will say we didn’t find any or the results will be low and under the radar so to speak and viewed as not a problem …

There are no safe levels of Glyphosate ….

Anthony

Anthony Samsel
Research Scientist / Consultant,
SEAPHS : Samsel Environmental and Public Health Services

One might wait till Samsel/Seneff’s latest article is published, for further details, or check some of their earlier published papers on it as listed here.

From the above two – it became clear to me that there is a possibility that the glyphosate readings in meat items as tested by some lab for CFIA might show a false negative or too low values of glyphosate. As Stephanie said – there were a 60 to 120 fold rise in detected glyphosate level, once the glyphosate embedded in animal proteins were extracted as a step prior to testing.

I aim to check later with CFIA for identification of the labs that did the tests on meat samples, to check if they used proteolysis or other methods as a pre-test process to extract embedded glyphosate that otherwise might now show up in the spectrogram. But that is in the future and I am not sure if either the Government or the labs will be willing to discuss these issues with me since I am not the client that ordered the tests. We shall see.

Meanwhile, I am assuming that CFIA did not specifically know about Semsel or Seneff’s work on glyphosate in animal protein, or of Monsanto and Dupont’s findings that glyphosate does not easily show up in standard spectrograms and false negatives or greatly reduced readings are very possible. Therefore it is likely the CFIA results on glyphosate in meat is showing greatly reduced values.

As Stephanie Seneff’s message indicates, very low levels of glyphosate in animal proteins may be more dangerous for human consumers compared to its plant based counterparts, simply because animal proteins might have an easier time slipping past our immune system by cell mimicry, since animal proteins are closer to our proteins than plant proteins.  We humans are also animals and evolved out of the animal kingdom, never mind religious scriptures.

And so, to see where it goes, I multiplied the glyphosate readings, added to their AMPA where applicable, by 90, which was the mid point between 60 and 120, to see where the projected glyphosate values would go.

This table shows those projected values.

This text may end up, after cleaning up and modification, in my coming book on the topic.

Thanks for reading. Comment welcome.

Wheat bran the most toxic of all American foods?

Posted on by

A shocking revelation

I found the glyphosate in wheat bran, as tested by CFIA, is a shocking story that deserves a section of its own. By “American” in the title, I meant north American which includes Canada. Mexico is out of this comment because Mexico makes so clean foods, as CFIA records show, that it does not belong in the Canada-USA grouping of America.

For the first 3,000 or so records from the CFIA, there was no wheat or wheat byproducts such as flour or bread. This was causing me both frustration and alarm, since most of us were very aware that conventional wheat was being  desiccated by glyphosate (RoundUp herbicide) just before harvest.

Bran, according to Wikipedia, is also known as miller’s bran, is the hard outer layers of cereal grain. It consists of the combined aleurone and pericarp. Therefore, wheat bran is essentially the outer hard layer of wheat kernel.

When wheat is processed to produce flour, this layer becomes a byproduct, and is called bran. In the case of processing wheat to make wheat flour, one gets miller’s or wheat bran. It is supposed to be packed with nutrition, and may offer many dietary benefits.

Wheat bran is commonly found in certain cereals, like Raisin Bran or Bran Flakes, as well as bran muffins, which rose to popularity in the 1980s. Wheat bran is beneficial toward providing digestive regularity and ending constipation because it is very high in dietary fiber. Some also claim that foods containing bran provide a feeling of fullness. This claim may be true, since it tends to absorb water and expand in the digestive system.

Wikipedia

The nutritional benefits of wheat bran are perhaps undisputed. For a time, it was even being touted that it might fight cancer. However, a cup (58 g) of wheat bran does offer significant nutritional pluses. One cup of this product in milk was supposed to contain 99% of the US recommended daily allowance (RDA) of fibre, nine grams of protein, and 34% of the RDA for iron. It was also known to be somewhat high in protein, various minerals and vitamin B6, also low in fat, with little cholesterol, or sugar. A magic food.

Wheat Bran is not a safe food! Not any more.

What happened in North America in the recent years, may have a very far reaching and devastating effect on tis product, by way of massive glyphosate contamination.This has likely not yet fully filtered down to the population, nor its implication sufficiently understood.

Why wheat product was not being tested in the first year of CFIA’s drive to test a wide spectrum of foods available to Canadians is a question only CFIA and the Government of Canada can answer. However, I am happy to find wheat beginning to appear in small samples tested in the second year of CFIA’s efforts, from around the summer of 2016. And the results appear to be shocking.

The table above refers. It has only a few of the most recent wheat bran items transcribed and not the entire lot. But all of them show bad readings and I shall be reporting on them all when I am done transcribing all the data. But these few figures are a good example of what the matter is with wheat in general and wheat bran in particular.

Most of these samples showed up with high measurable amounts of glyphosate and its first metabolite AMPA which is equally nasty. These two figures have been added up in this table to show a combined concentration of glyphosate and AMPA for each sample of wheat bran. Usually the readings show very high levels of glyphosate accompanied by a very small number for AMPA.

We know wheat is heavily desiccated with glyphosate. Now, I wonder if most that that glyphosate, applied just before harvesting, actually accumulates into the wheat bran? Could it be that wheat bran is the primary depository for glyphosate and AMPA? If that is true for wheat, could it also be true for all other grains that are desiccated with glyphosate and what have an identifiable “bran” ?

Guess I shall be looking for these answers elsewhere, to keep me busy.

Meanwhile the table above answers many questions and raises just as many more puzzles and questions. For example, there are wheat bran samples with over 4,000 ppb GLY+AMPA count that are of “unknown” origin. This “unknown” category has been a major irritant for me. I suspect that most of these unmarked food grains are of local (Canadian) grown or from USA. Since both USA and Canada try to protect their own agricultural produce from undue free competition from others, usually transportation of wheat across the border is not permitted by either country, since each of them produce the crop and want to protect its market. That is one reason I suspect most of the “unknown” foods are Canadian, unless the type is something that cannot not grow or is not cultivated in Canada.

Next, most of these samples with high glyphosate content is without any kind of identification mark, such as brand name of the product, or where it was grown or which store or farmer it was collected from. Therefore, it gets nearly impossible for an average consumer to figure out what to buy and what to avoid. This absence of clear identification of a potentially poisonous food item makes the entire class – i.e. wheat bran, a poison pill for me and I am going to avoid it like the plague.

This also proves that there is perhaps a need for grassroots people’s movement to get their local municipalities to start testing a few food items grown locally and sold in local stores, for glyphosate content, every month and making all results public, including brand names and source of the sample. Folks should insist, for example, that the first few food items their municipality tests in the first month should be wheat products such as wheat grains, wheat bran, and bread, that are available in local food stores, and make all results public. Those interested might check a related petition and effort at a movement on this front.

Then there is the question of allowable minimum residue limit (MRL) for glyphosate in wheat bran. From the above table, and going back to the raw data, it gets quite obvious that 4,610 ppb of glyphosate or 28 ppb AMPA is not a violation, but 6630 ppb of glyphosate and 159 ppb of AMPA is a violation. Therefore, the existing MRL lies between 4610 and 6630 ppb for glyphosate in wheat bran, and between 28 and 159 ppb of AMPA in wheat bran.

This observation raises even more questions. First, why is the MRL so low in AMPA and so high in glyphosate? Does the Government have proof that somehow glyphosate is a lot less harmful to us than its first degrading compound, AMPA? From what I hear, there is no evidence that glyphosate is a lot safer in comparison with AMPA and there may not be any provable justification for glyphosate’s MRL to be so much higher than AMPA’s.

Or could it be that the allowable MRL is neither specific to glyphosate nor to AMPA, but the total of both, as is actually shown on the above table? I need to find these answers.

As it is, Health Canada has till date not disclosed the safety test data and documents based on which it is supposed to have approved the use of Glyphosate in Canadian agriculture. My understanding of the law is that it may be illegal to release a product, such as glyphosate, for use in Canada, without disclosing its safety test report and raw data.

I have multiple petitions and ongoing struggles with the Canadian government, spanning two administrations, Harper’s and Trudeau’s, for Health Canada to make public all safety test records and data based on which it approved glyphosate’s use. The government does not deny one’s right to see such document, and yet keep dragging its feet on it. It has been dragging feet for thirty years and counting.
Petition 1
Petition 2 : e-413

Meanwhile, multiple “Access To Information” appeals to various wings of the government for disclosure or records of our foods tested for glyphosate has finally resulted in some success, in me getting over 7,000 records of foods tested by CFIA since 2015. I have so far transcribed only about half of it, and am still checking for errors and typo etc. I intend to publish an e-book of my findings and concerns regarding glyphosate in our food, for which the initial work has started.

Going back to the table above, what happens when the result is found to be in violation? Common sense tells me the product should be taken off the shelves and banned. Also, the public should be notified about it so they can avoid buying it, or return what they already have bought, and claim a refund. Also, folks that have already consumed some of it, should be advised what they need to look out for medically and how to detoxify themselves.

Anybody remembers such as incidence and a warning on wheat bran’s glyphosate content being too high?

There is another issue here. I can see that the allowable MRL is not fixed for all foods. It is argued that the MRL for foods were a lot lower a decade or two ago, and are being constantly raised. Based on what evidence? Has the public been shown this evidence?

The suspicion is, the MRLs are being raised simply because existing limits have already been crossed, so the safe limits are being raised above whatever the current levels turn out to be, so that all foods are still declared safe – never mind the proof and never mind showing such proof to the people.

Once my work in transcribing all the data is done, and I have listed out my range of unanswered questions, I shall be taking these up with the Canadian Government agin. it is a never ending process and highly frustrating since the Government attempts to hide rather than be transparent, o food safety issues, in my experience.

This blog is a kind of space holder for some of the emerging information. I am now convinced, that I myself shall avoid any food that has wheat bran mentioned, like the plague, unless it is certified organic and unless I find CFIA test results of Canadian or US produced wheat bran that is certified organic.

Comments welcome.