Here is the money quote that these articles seem to be based off of. From an email detailing progress on developing testing methods:
>"I spiked a batch of broccoli at 0.002 ug/g and could detect the glyphosate pretty well but I did need to manually integrate some of the peaks. I used broccoli because it’s the only thing I have on hand that does not have glyphosate in it. I have brought wheat crackers,
granola cereal, and corn meal from home and there’s a fair amount in all of them.”
There is another email talking about the one corn sample being 6.5ppm, above the 5.0 threshold, also in the context of testing methods.
So the corn sample could be an issue, but the headlines about it being everywhere, in implied high concentrations, seems premature unless I missed something in these emails. The tester used the broccoli because it had none and he could test detection down to 0.002 ppm, FAR below the 5.0 threshold. When he says there was a fair amount in everything else he had, we still don't know what that means. Was it .02ppm, .2ppm, 2.0ppm or what? The tone of the email and it's reply (not quoted above) doesn't suggest worry about a high rate to me.
>"I spiked a batch of broccoli at 0.002 ug/g and could detect the glyphosate pretty well but I did need to manually integrate some of the peaks. I used broccoli because it’s the only thing I have on hand that does not have glyphosate in it. I have brought wheat crackers, granola cereal, and corn meal from home and there’s a fair amount in all of them.”
There is another email talking about the one corn sample being 6.5ppm, above the 5.0 threshold, also in the context of testing methods.
So the corn sample could be an issue, but the headlines about it being everywhere, in implied high concentrations, seems premature unless I missed something in these emails. The tester used the broccoli because it had none and he could test detection down to 0.002 ppm, FAR below the 5.0 threshold. When he says there was a fair amount in everything else he had, we still don't know what that means. Was it .02ppm, .2ppm, 2.0ppm or what? The tone of the email and it's reply (not quoted above) doesn't suggest worry about a high rate to me.