Facts About Glyphosate Residues Ignored
PANAMA - Oct 25/18 - SNS -- Glyphosate residues in pulses has the potential to become a marketing issue in some destinations because of bad journalism, fearful headlines, and cherry picking available data by advocacy groups.
The chemical is not registered for use as a desiccant, but is still used by some farmers for that purpose. When used in this way and under the wrong conditions or in the wrong quantities the harvested product will contain residues. One of the issues may be that farmers are told glyphosate can be used as a desiccant, instead of being told to only use chemicals registered for that purpose.
Under a freedom of information request, data from tests conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) were obtained by food activists. Instead of reporting the actual results, they only reported those samples which were above the maximum residue level (MRL). Instead of checking the facts, journalists and food activists focussed on the outlier data.
What the CFIA actually discovered that was that while 47.4% of all the retail samples of peas, beans and lentils they tested contained detectable levels of glyphosate residues, only 0.6% were above the MRL or 4 parts per million (ppm) for beans and lentils and 5ppm for peas.
All that can be inferred from the results is that a high percentage of farmers are using glyphosate as a pre harvest application instead of sticking with registered desiccants. It does not tell you that pulses are contaminated with glyphosate.
One of the other problems has to do with the way researchers do their work. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared that glyphosate was a probable cause of cancer. That is not a definitive statement.
The only link between glyphosate and cancer was that people who had cancer ate foods which might have had detectable levels of glyphosate residues. This was almost certainly based on a database analysis and not direct research. Many government agencies, after looking at the same data, did not reach the same conclusion.
Moreover, it is not certain whether glyphosate is a causative factor or if in combination with other dietary factors contributes to the occurrence of cancer. Always overlooked, is that one of the most important contributing factors is age.
The simple fact is that glyphosate is a poison. If you drink it you will most likely die. If you are a farmer and use it improperly for many years, you could very well become sick from long term exposure. You might even get cancer. But, it is a long road from excessive exposure from improper handling of the product to asserting that if glyphosate residues are under the MRL that there is a clear health risk.
The Indian government has indicated it will start testing for glyphosate residues in imported pulses. Assuming that the proportion of total production that is above the MRL matches the results from the CFIA tests, then the risk of rejection is around 0.6%.
The facts make the headlines look absurd and reflect an abject failure by editors and journalists to check facts instead of reporting as fact the statements of people whose only desire is to convince people to eat the kinds of foods they like. Food tribalism is as bad as any form. Food should only be about personal choice, not forcing others to switch because of your prejudices.
There are people who want their pulses to be free from glyphosate residues and that market niche ought to be served. Most do not care as long as residues are under the MRL. But, a distinct minortity are determined to create as much fear and doubt as possible.
Only active subscribers can read all of this article.
If you are a subscriber, please log into the website.
If you are not a subscriber, click here to subscribe to this edition of the STAT website and to learn more about becoming a subscriber.
