It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nearly a third of food samples in CFIA testing contain glyphosate residues

page: 1
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Seems we be getting a bit of weedkiller in our daily diets.

Anyone find this concerning?

Glyphosphate is being used to desiccate crops prior to harvest, stop this practice and the problem goes away.


Many Canadians have been waiting for the CFIA report on glyphosate residues because the herbicide has become extremely controversial.

Last year the European Union came close to banning it because of a scientific report from the World Health Organization.

In March of 2015 the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” to humans.

Many toxicologists have condemned the IARC decision because numerous agencies, including Health Canada, the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency, have studied the herbicide. They all concluded that it’s not carcinogenic and not a threat to human health.
Link


The FDA was supposed to do a similar study but suspended the program saying they didn't have adequate testing procedures, which I find hard to believe.
FDA Suspends Testing for Glyphosate Residues in Food



+1 more 
posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Ive denounced this crap for years on ATS only to have some sycophant come along and say: it dispeses in the sun, its totally fine, how could we feed the world without herbacides etc...

This crap is killing all of our gut linings...predicating almost all modern chronic ailments, diseases and loss of essential minerals not just leaching them from our bodies but from our now inert soils.

There shouldnt be as many people as there are...not because the world cant sustain them...but because they are incapable of sustaining themselves outside of modern convenience.

The worlds problem stems from the rich wanting to get richer keeping the helpless alive whom would otherwise never make it.

Glyphosphate is representative of controllers fattening cows that feed all of their varied industries of self enrichment.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

It's safe, so says the FDA.

One of the processes is to spray wheat AFTER harvest to minimize fungal growth. I imagine there are many other uses the general public does not know.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I know you're trying to make this out to be really, really bad, but only 1.3% over the MRL of all the tested food is a good result.

When it comes to herbicide management, Canada is one of the best, and this test shows that.






edit on 27/4/17 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: D8Tee

It's safe, so says the FDA.

One of the processes is to spray wheat AFTER harvest to minimize fungal growth. I imagine there are many other uses the general public does not know.
Never have I seen roundup being applied after harvest.

You spray it onto a still standing crop to kill it and which hastens the ripening process and allows for an earlier harvest with more uniform maturity.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

You maybe right on the timing. The idea is to dry the product out. So it would be done before cutting.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: D8Tee

I know you're trying to make this out to be really, really bad, but only 1.3% over the MRL of all the tested food is a good result.

When it comes to herbicide management, Canada is one of the best, and this test shows that.



Not trying to make it look really, really, really bad at all, how did you come up with that spin?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I have no problems with labeling Monsanto as really really bad, maybe even evil.

But our government has our backs don't they? The FDA and EPA wouldn't be beholden to corporate interests over the health of the citizens, would they?

Probably a fake news source but oh well:

Glyphosate.news


Monsanto vehemently denies that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it has spent a lot of money covering up studies that don’t support its position, paying off scientists or bullying them into saying their products are safe, and lobbying the government to make decisions in their favor. In 2015, around 220 million pounds of glyphosate were used in the U.S.

At the same time that the USDA’s quiet reversal on their position toward testing for glyphosate came to light, the New York Times exposed possible collusion between Monsanto and the EPA to manipulate science in a way that minimizes the risks of glyphosate, prompting California Rep. Ted Lieu to call on Congress and the Justice Department to investigate the matter.

In that case, unsealed court documents indicated that Monsanto was ghostwriting research and attributing it to academics and that the EPA had internal disagreements about its safety assessment. Those files were unsealed by a judge presiding over a lawsuit filed against Monsanto by hundreds of people who say that exposure to Roundup caused them or a loved one to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the governmental bodies set up ostensibly to protect us are far more concerned with protecting their own interests. This explains the growing trend toward buying organic food and growing your own food, which is really the only way to be completely sure the food you eat has not come into contact with this dangerous substance. If enough people sign the Food Policy Action petition, it is hoped that the USDA will no longer be able to downplay the importance of investigating this major threat to public health.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

It is really really bad. Check out human studies by Doc Perlmutter



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: D8Tee

You maybe right on the timing. The idea is to dry the product out. So it would be done before cutting.


Perhaps that is PR bull from Monsento. Typically, the Roundup is sprayed early in the crop life to kill the weeds competing with the crop. The crop itself is usually GMO'd to resist the Roundup. See the problem with that excuse?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

Sure, you're correct...I mean big tobacco ran this same ruse
Anyone defending this crap os suspect of complicity



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
31% of their food is poisoned. More than 1/3 the entire food source

The 1% creates MRL chart showing 1.3% is poisoned.

They will tell you the acceptable amount of poison to ingest.

We need to get these skanks off of earth, before they salt the planet for profit.


edit on 4 by Mandroid7 because: edit



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
31% of their food is poisoned. More than 1/3 the entire food source

The 1% creates MRL chart showing 1.3% is poisoned.

They will tell you the acceptable amount of poison to ingest.

We need to get these skanks off of earth, before the salt the planet for profit.



And that is another interesting point, how long will these wonderful chemicals persist in the earth? So if we stop using them tomorrow, how long will they continue to contaminate future crops?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: D8Tee

You maybe right on the timing. The idea is to dry the product out. So it would be done before cutting.


Perhaps that is PR bull from Monsento. Typically, the Roundup is sprayed early in the crop life to kill the weeds competing with the crop. The crop itself is usually GMO'd to resist the Roundup. See the problem with that excuse?
You have described how Roundup would be used for Roundup Ready crops like Canola or Soybeans.

Roundup is also used as a preharvest weed control in cereal crops that are not Roundup Ready GMO plants.

Roundups own literature states this for wheat, barley and oats application preharvest.


Apply when the crop has 30% or less moisture content – the hard dough stage. At this stage, a thumbnail impression will remain on the kernel.
This stage is typically 3 to 5 days before you would normally swath.



Clark Brenzil, provincial weed specialist with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture has this to say on how Glyphosphate works:

“Glyphosate is a systemic product, which means that once it enters the plant it will get into the circulation system and move through the plant to the same places that the sugars are going, which are called sinks,” says Brenzil. “The sink at the pre-harvest timing is the seed. So basically what you are doing by applying early is taking what is applied to the surface of the leaf and putting it right into the seed.”








edit on 27-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Pesticides on foods and indoor air quality have been on the top of health threats for a while. You need to wash those store bought vegetables well to get rid of residue. Even organic isn't completely safe because of potential blow over from other farms.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Washing won't get rid of glyphosphate, as it's right inside of the plant itself.

There are other pesticides and herbicides that function the same way, no amount of washing will get rid of the chemicals.

Still, yes it's a good idea to wash the produce.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Back in around 2012, after they started to use glyphosate as a preharvest grain treatment, they wound up with higher than allowed amounts of glyphosate in the grains. So the departments overseeing this solved the problem. They raised allowable levels in the USA. When some countries in Europe are worried about the negative effects at the old levels and have now banned the use in preharvest, the USA raised the allowable limits. Now they have problems with some cereals having too high levels even with the new allowable amounts. I think the people should be aware of this preharvest treatment of grains. It is supposed to be regulated, but the farmer has to harvest his grains when necessary and since many states require this preharvest treatment to kill fungus, the farmer has no option but to spray when he has to spray or he will lose his crop.

But Monsanto is very happy, they probably tripled their sales of glyphosate.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Here's a Q&A from about 3 and a half years ago..

Expert Answer(s):


Question


How much pesticide and / or weed killer gets absorbed into freshly planted GM seeds from residual amounts in the soil from previous treatments ? And how much gets absorbed by plants through roots after new treatments ? And, do end products retain any pesticide or weed killer amounts (other than washable surface amounts) that would be unsafe to humans ? Who determines safe levels if any levels do in fact exist ? And finally, are different amounts absorbed by non-GM originated plants ?

Question Submitted by: xuenchen from chicago, Illinois



Answer



Your questions all relate to the safety of pesticide residues that may occur in GM crops. That’s a reasonable concern given the rapid adoption and widespread use of GM crops. Importantly, since crops tolerant to herbicides such as glyphosate are very popular among farmers, spraying of glyphosate could lead to residues of the active ingredient in the forage or grain that is consumed by animals or humans. When farmers spray fields to eliminate weeds that compete with the crop and reduce yield, the vast majority of the glyphosate enters plants through the leaves. Glyphosate is tightly bound to soil, and little or no glyphosate is taken up from the soil, either by newly planted seeds or by existing plants, whether GM or non-GM. One of the reasons that glyphosate is so popular with farmers is that farmers can safely plant other crops after using glyphosate without impacts on the subsequent crop. Over time, soil microorganisms break down any glyphosate residues in the soil.

Any glyphosate residues that remain in the plant decrease over time following application, and are less in grain compared to leaves. Processing of grain for use in food also reduces detectible residues. For example, there is no detectible glyphosate present in the oil fraction in soybean or corn oil.

Finally, since there is the potential for residues of glyphosate to remain in forage and grain used in animal feed and human foods, the levels must be measured across many locations and environments to determine the highest levels that might be present. In the US, the EPA is responsible to examine all uses of pesticides and must examine the residue data and establish safe levels of exposure. All uses must be approved and the combined exposure from all crops must be below the acceptable dose level established by the EPA. This process was described previously in detail on this site. That answer can be found at: (gmoanswers.com...). Other countries follow similar procedures within their regulatory agencies.



Answered by: Marian Bleeke on Thursday, 10/17/2013 7:02 pm

Fate and Metabolism Platform Lead, Monsanto

I joined Monsanto in 1984 after receiving my Ph.D. in Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry from the University of California – Berkeley. I am part of the Regulatory Environmental Sciences Technology Center, and have spent my career on understanding how Monsanto’s agricultural chemical products behave in the environment. We study what happens to our products in plants, animals, soil and water, and determine the potential for environmental and human exposure, in order to ensure that our products can be used safely.



Expert Answer(s):





posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I've seen the Canadian studies before on this wonder how it compares to the US.

Info from Nov 2016;



The herbicide residues were found in cookies, crackers, popular cold cereals and chips commonly consumed by children and adults, according to Food Democracy Now and the group’s “Detox Project,” which arranged for the testing at the San Francisco-based Anresco lab. Anresco uses liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), a method widely considered by the scientific community and regulators as the most reliable for analyzing glyphosate residues. The groups issued a report Monday that details the findings.




The tests conducted by Anresco were done on 29 foods commonly found on grocery store shelves. Glyphosate residues were found in General Mills’ Cheerios at 1,125.3 parts per billion (ppb), in Kashi soft-baked oatmeal dark chocolate cookies at 275.57 ppb, and in Ritz Crackers at 270.24 ppb, according to the report. Different levels were found in Kellogg’s Special K cereal, Triscuit Crackers and several other products. The report noted that for some of the findings, the amounts were “rough estimates at best and may not represent an accurate representation of the sample.” The food companies did not respond to a request for comment.

Source



Alarming Levels of Glyphosate Found in Popular American Foods

Independent tests on an array of popular American food products found many samples contained residue levels of the weed killer glyphosate. The nonprofit organizations behind the tests—Food Democracy Now and The Detox Project—released a report Monday that details the findings. The groups are calling for corporate and regulatory action to address consumer safety concerns.

Source2


originally posted by: rickymouse
Back in around 2012, after they started to use glyphosate as a preharvest grain treatment, they wound up with higher than allowed amounts of glyphosate in the grains. So the departments overseeing this solved the problem. They raised allowable levels in the USA. When some countries in Europe are worried about the negative effects at the old levels and have now banned the use in preharvest, the USA raised the allowable limits. Now they have problems with some cereals having too high levels even with the new allowable amounts. I think the people should be aware of this preharvest treatment of grains. It is supposed to be regulated, but the farmer has to harvest his grains when necessary and since many states require this preharvest treatment to kill fungus, the farmer has no option but to spray when he has to spray or he will lose his crop.

But Monsanto is very happy, they probably tripled their sales of glyphosate.

How shady is that, though not shocking coming from them.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

We'd know more about how it compares if the FDA would figure out how to test for it.

They were supposed to be doing a study, but the claim is they don't have proper procedures in place to do the testing.


The agency was finally forced to put the glyphosate residue testing part of the work plan on hold amid confusion, disagreement and difficulties with establishing a standard methodology to use across the agency’s multiple U.S. laboratories, according to FDA sources. Equipment issues have also been a problem, with some labs citing a need for more sensitive instruments, sources within FDA said.

FDA spokeswoman Megan McSeveney confirmed the testing suspension and said the agency is not sure when it will resume.

Getting solid data on glyphosate’s presence in the American food supply is more important than ever now as the EPA finalizes a risk assessment for glyphosate and tries to determine if any limits should be put on future use of the herbicide. The FDA work covers only a few foods, but is a long-needed, good first step. Consumers can only hope the testing resumes soon.

edit on 28-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join