CFIA report to weigh in on glyphosate debate

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is about to release a report that could change the public perception of glyphosate.

Since 2015, CFIA scientists have been testing food for residues of glyphosate, a product best known by the Roundup brand name, although other brands and generic exist. It is the most popular herbicide in the world.

In 2016, the CFIA said it was planning to test a long list of foods and commodities, including juices, grains, grain products, beans, peas, lentils, soybean products and barley.

Before these tests, the CFIA had not monitored food for residues of the herbicide.

In an email, the agency said it would release an executive summary of the report in a food safety testing bulletin in about a month.

“The executive summary will provide context to what that report means for the health and safety of consumers. An email notification will also be sent to subscribers of the CFIA’s Reports on Food Safety Testing.”

The report could generate a great deal of media attention in Canada because glyphosate is one of the most controversial agricultural chemicals in Europe and America.

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

ADVERTISMENT

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

The IARC decision rocked the scientific status quo around glyphosate, as previous studies and most toxicologists had concluded that it’s not carcinogenic.

The IARC report spawned countless lawsuits in the U.S., with environmental groups suing companies over glyphosate residues in foods like granola bars and honey.

Related story: Glyphosate residue in honey raises concerns

California may soon require that glyphosate products carry a label saying it’s a cancer threat, because of the IARC ruling.

Environmental groups are waiting on the CFIA report because it could alter the public debate in Canada.

“Naturally, we welcome the Canadian Food Inspection Agency publishing data on glyphosate contamination levels in food. People have a right to know what risks they’re taking when they go food shopping,” said Eoin Dubsky, from SumOfUs, a global group dedicated to curbing the power of corporations.

ADVERTISMENT

“Publicly revealing glyphosate contamination levels in food could also help producers and brands think over their relationship to glyphosate and hopefully we’ll hear smarter food industry players committing to cut the toxic stuff and regain consumer trust.”

The CFIA report comes at a time when IARC and the credibility of its study are under attack.

The European Food Safety Authority, the United Nations World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have studied the risk and said the herbicide doesn’t cause cancer.

In mid-March, the European Chemicals Agency, said direct contact can cause eye damage and chronic exposure poses a risk to aquatic life but it said glyphosate isn’t carcinogenic to humans.

“The available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria… to classify glyphosate for specific target organ toxicity, or as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or for reproductive toxicity.”

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

ADVERTISMENT

  • Walter

    I believe the CFIA has lost a lot of peoples trust, hopefully they are able to regain some of it back.

  • Tony Mitra is compiling and making the data publicly available online with simple charts that shows shocking levels of glyphosate in Canada foods based on govt. records. Canada has some of the HIGHEST levels of glyphosate in the world. Lets hope this “official” release get us some protection and one day “conventional” foods will be digestible again. 😀
    I don’t think I can post links here.
    Search “Tony Mitra Glyphosate” to see the data.

    • SageThinker

      Wow, i did what you suggested and googled “Tony Mitra Glyphosate”. I see that levels in lentils, bean flour, and chick pea products are very high. Surprising.

      • Stephen Daniels

        I googled ‘tony mita glyphosate’ and found a scam site selling me fake test kits.Wasn’t surprised at all.

  • Monsanto has its behind covered on this. U.S. Congress passed legislation banning anyone the right to sue Monsanto for anything more than the replacement of or the price paid for seed. Now we see peer reviewed scientific evidence not paid for by the accused showing the effects of glysophate are the same among humans as those in the plant world. Glysophate prohibits the uptake of minerals and metals starving the plant. As a chelater of metals it does the same in humans. Every farmer signed on to the TUG agreement simply by opening a bag of seed. Deep in the 2017 Spring Canola agreement under, “Grower’s Exclusive Limited Remedy” you will find this: . “IN NO EVENT SHALL FGI OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.” So…it was the farmer who put the glysophate on the plants and it will be the farmer as the sole defendant in the upcoming class-action that will stun the world at large. Good luck boyz. file:///C:/Users/me/Downloads/Monsanto%20TUG%20agreement.pdf

  • anthony samsel

    Tony Mitra has released the Canadian data available NOW on Amazon in a Kindle download. Title Poison Food of North America. It has the results of 7,800 analysis for glyphosate found in all kinds of food …… a good reference of the current Canadian effort extracted from their raw data….
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XS4Y6H2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490301741&sr=8-1&keywords=tony+Mitra

  • anthony samsel

    Tony Mitra has released the Canadian data available NOW on Amazon in a Kindle download. Title Poison Food of North America

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B

  • Stephen Daniels

    Wonder if it’s more carcinogenic than beef?Than sugar?Then butter?Then the air in large cities?Doubt it.Putting it in perspective seems just a hot button issue for some just like some who are obsessed with fluoride in drinking water, people just on a crusade for the sake of it.

    • richard

      ……..or those obsessed with preserving status quo ignorance…. Its all a matter of perspective…..one mans ceiling is another mans floor.

    • SonyHater

      True. In my opinion, the residue from preharvest application is the issue. No one in the food supply chain is testing the residue levels AND as the CFIA reporting is going to show, it regularly exceeds the set safety limits. That’s fact.

      The crusaders will then venture into the validity of the existing residue safety limits, the apparently flawed process used to set them, and manufacturer’s questionable ethics around access to safety data.

      • Trish Jordan

        Actually, this is completely false Stephen. The Cdn Grain Commission regularly tests cereal crops for glyphosate residues and levels have come nowhere near bumping up against the Allowable Levels set by CFIA. Same for common food products being tested by both activist NGOs and regulatory bodies in both Canada and the U.S.

        • SonyHater

          Hi Trish, can you provide a link with info about Cdn Grain Commision glyphosate testing for domestic market? I don’t see it on their website or elsewhere. I think it is just for export markets that will not accept product that exceeds their MRLs, especially in the high value Asian markets. (https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/crops/grains-industry-says-residue-issues-arent-going-away/ )

          • Trish Jordan

            I would suggest reaching out to Cdn Grain Commission. No formal report or program. Just they test to ensure MRLs for export purposes are not being exceeded. My point is that the detection of any chemistry doesn’t mean anything. It’s expected. The presence of a chemistry is not the same as the presence of a risk. From a human health and safety perspective detecting any chemical in a food product is generally irrelevant when you can test to PPM or PPB. Check out Health Canada site for information on how they ensure human safety. Table salt and coffee more “toxic” than glyphosate. It’s not the chemical..it’s the dose that matters.

          • Harold

            Table salt and coffee do not harm gut bacteria and they do not compare in any way to glyphosate. If coffee or table salt has in it a pesticide then the pesticide must be removed. How do you remove glyphosate from glyphosate to make your comparison?
            I for one am fed up with the lunacy of accepting a poison because there are other accepted poisons to consume elsewhere too. Who can you sell this logic to other than one “high” on Dope? Glyphosate harms gut bacteria no matter of the level consumed. That is how Glyphosate works and that is what it does at any level. There are over 1000 species of gut bacteria and each one has a specific health function. Some are tolerant to glyphosate but many are not and they die leaving the properties of food “un-mined”. Coffee and salt are the same you say.

          • anthony samsel

            We are not talking about acute toxicity and LD50’s.. With glyphosate the dose does not make the poison it is a chronic toxin that accumulates and integrates with proteins changing their shape and structure which alters their functionality.

            Glyphosate displays a non-linear, non-monotonic dose response.. There are other considerations besides linear dose response toxicology. There is cytotoxicity, cell and tissue specific receptors, hundreds of ENZYMES, cofactors …and receptor selectivity, up and down regulation, competition with endogenous hormones …..

            Square pegs do not fit in round holes … Perhaps regulators were deprived of such rudimentary children’s toys

            How about TAMOXIFEN flare ???? The dose does not make the poison..

          • FarmersSon63

            Glyphosate does not accumulate.
            Every regulatory agency in the world disagrees with your guess.

          • anthony samsel

            The Canadian Grain Commission will not share their data and voluminous files on glyphosate testing.. I talked to Tony Mitra today who already approached them …It took Tony over a year to get the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to hand over their data …

          • Harold

            The Canadian Grain Commission clearly has no interest in accountability to the public that it has a duty to serve. It is truly sad that Canadians often fall prey and victim to a title and have very little concern for its content. (Don’t judge a book by its cover) Tony is not one of them. The Canadian Grain Commission is to protect us from the corporation but they have in turn protected the industry from the people; a betrayal and a fraudulent acceptance of a paycheck. You and Tony know this to be true each from your own personal experiences. This problem is wide spread into all agencies yet Canadians still trust a Title as presented knowing that something is wrong. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is just another one. Had the CFIA done the job that they are paid for and entrusted with; Tony would have found nothing to report. In this regard Tony was the CFIA. The man makes the title and not the other-way-around into dead-wood. We are aware of a tremendous news blackout that aides to the blind trust in our Canadian titles. Tony will not be made public by the Mainstream media even though he has facts in his hands. Who is the media and the government protecting; one would have to be totally “blind” to claim that it is the public.
            Thanks for taking your time to clarify matters.

      • FarmersSon63

        Glyphosate is sprayed at 24-32 ounces PER ACRE.
        The fresh product hitting the plant is already below tolerances established by the EPA and USDA.
        Why would you test for residues above established limits if there is a zero percent chance that levels could exceed this?

  • baseballfan1945

    We will just ship it off to Africa like we did with DDT. Anyone who says it is not toxic to animals should have tried to keep my cat out of it. The hydro line next to my home was sprayed and the cat walked through the area.(Same day) When she returned home we bathed her but she did not live the night. The vet said she was poisoned by something she absorbed through the skin – not ingested.

    • Stephen Daniels

      So you would think the farm fields would be free of gophers coyotes and other vermin since they are sometimes sprayed directly or live in the sprayed field.But fields are full of these vermin.Your cat was a either extremely allergic to something like the surfactants in the round up or vet was patronizing you.