Wheat grain usually carries 20–70 µg/kg cadmium and little detectable lead, arsenic or mercury; cadmium is the metal to check, against EU limits of 100 µg/kg for common wheat and 180 µg/kg for durum.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →
-
Metals of concern:
Cadmium decides most wheat questions; nickel and chromium are higher in concentration, and lead is a concern mainly near contaminated sites.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source →
-
Main drivers:
Wheat type (durum accumulates more), soil cadmium and pH, nearby mines or factories, and the bran and germ fractions.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source →5Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsScientific ReportsRead source →6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →
-
Practical framing:
Specify the wheat type and origin, and ask for lot cadmium and lead results compared with the limit for that exact material.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source →
Wheat overview
Cadmium is the metal that decides most wheat questions. In WHO GEMS/Food, 10,625 common wheat grain results had a median of 28–29 µg/kg, and 4.2% were above the EU maximum of 100 µg/kg for common wheat; lead, total arsenic and total mercury medians sat below their reporting limits.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source → Wheat contributes so much dietary cadmium because it is eaten in large amounts, not because its concentrations are unusually high: the joint FAO/WHO expert committee identified wheat as one of the main sources, at 3–29% of the tolerable intake across regional diets.8Evaluation of certain food contaminants — Sixty-fourth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food AdditivesWHO Technical Report Series 930 (Sixty-fourth meeting of JECFA, Rome, 8-17 February 2005)Read source →
Two comparisons matter more than any country ranking. Durum wheat, the hard wheat used for pasta, had a monitoring median of 70 µg/kg cadmium against 20 µg/kg for soft wheat reported by the same European programme, and the EU allows it a higher limit (180 against 100 µg/kg).1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source → Within the kernel, cadmium concentrates in the outer and germ fractions: bran had a median of 64 µg/kg and germ 110 µg/kg, against 28–29 µg/kg in whole grain.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Grain from fields beside steel mills, battery plants and mines carried several times more cadmium and lead than grain from background farmland in the same studies.4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source →5Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsScientific ReportsRead source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →
For a buyer, the supported priorities are a lot-specific cadmium result compared with the limit for the right wheat type (common, durum, bran or germ), a lead result, and knowledge of where and on what soil the grain was grown.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →10General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source → Imported durum grain from Australia, Turkey and Russia measured lower in cadmium than durum from the United States and Canada at Italian border controls, and low-cadmium durum cultivars exist, but these are patterns to verify by testing rather than guarantees.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source →
What counts as wheat grain
This page covers wheat grain: common or bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), durum and other tetraploid wheats, the hulled wheats spelt, einkorn and emmer, and the bran and germ milled from them.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source →11Characterization of Triticum turgidum sspp. durum, turanicum, and polonicum grown in Central Italy in relation to technological and nutritional aspectsFrontiers in Plant ScienceRead source → Wheat flour, bread, pasta, noodles, breakfast cereals and infant cereals have their own pages and their results are not used here, even when a study measured them alongside grain.12Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source →13Dietary Exposure to Toxic Metals (Cd, Pb and Hg) from Cereals Marketed in Madeira and the AzoresBiological Trace Element ResearchRead source →14Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaJournal of Nutritional ScienceRead source →
Material and basis are kept separate because they change the numbers. Durum, spelt, bran, germ and hulled, cracked or rolled grain such as bulgur and flakes are separate rows and separate references, and dry-weight results are never pooled with results on an as-sold or unstated basis.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →14Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaJournal of Nutritional ScienceRead source → A WHO region in GEMS/Food is a reporting region, not where the wheat grew, and the European cadmium category “wheat grains and flour” mixes grain with flour, so it is shown separately.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →12Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source →
Heavy metal contamination profile of wheat
The table holds every wheat result extracted from thirty survey and field sources and the WHO GEMS/Food monitoring database: one row for each statistic a source reports for a subgroup, material and metal, so a mean and a range from the same samples appear as separate rows.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source →14Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaJournal of Nutritional ScienceRead source →15Determination of Chromium Content of Food and Beverages of Plant OriginPolish Journal of Food and Nutrition SciencesRead source → Ratings place a mean, median or single result against a pooled HMI wheat reference for the same material and basis, built from every compatible sampling family; non-detects remain intervals and are never read as zero.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →14Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaJournal of Nutritional ScienceRead source →16Application of microwave-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry for ultra-trace determination of lead and cadmium in cereals and agricultural productsInternational Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 96(3):271-283Read source → Rows that failed a check against their own paper stay visible with the reason and are not compared, and grain from contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →17The concentration, source and potential human health risk of heavy metals in the commonly consumed foods in BangladeshEcotoxicology and Environmental SafetyRead source →18Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →19Determination of the Level of Heavy Metals in the Selected Cereals from Debre Markos Local Market, Amhara Region, EthiopiaInternational Journal of Analytical ChemistryRead source →
Typical concentrations differ greatly by metal. In GEMS/Food common wheat grain, cadmium was detected in 9,522 of 10,625 results, while lead was quantified in only 2,342 of 5,614 and total mercury in 157 of 717, so their medians are bounded by reporting limits (below 20 µg/kg for lead and 5 µg/kg for mercury).1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Inorganic arsenic in grain had a median of 2–9 µg/kg in monitoring results, and the European estimate for wheat grain was 9–25 µg/kg between its lower and upper bounds.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →20Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source → Nickel and chromium run higher: Bijie wheat in Guizhou had medians of 468 µg/kg nickel and 1,488 µg/kg chromium, while Polish grain had a chromium median of 27 µg/kg.3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →15Determination of Chromium Content of Food and Beverages of Plant OriginPolish Journal of Food and Nutrition SciencesRead source →
Comparison methods and scope
Each row is one statistic a source reports for one subgroup, material and metal; a mean and a range from the same samples are separate rows. Ratings place a reported mean, median or sample result against a pooled HMI wheat reference for the same material and basis, built from every compatible sampling family. Same-study contrasts compare an origin, cultivar, site or fraction with its own study’s reference group. Held rows failed a check against their own paper and are shown but not compared.
First displayed analyte: Cadmium: 172 findings from 25 sources. Each row retains its statistic and measurement basis.
Filter findings
376 of 376 findings · 10 analytes
About this table
| Food form | Collection scope | Finding (µg/kg) | Comparison | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
66 findings · 19 studies · 13 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region AFRO; random sampling2012Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EMRO; unknown2014–2019 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling1997Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2001–2020 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000–2006 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2011–2020 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2002–2015 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling1995–2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | all nine wheat samples2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Ethiopia wheat flour2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Ethiopian wheat flour2017Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported wheat flour2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported wheat flour2017Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grain (Kakaba)Alemu et al. 2022 | Kakaba2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Local2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Mossobo)Alemu et al. 2022 | Mossobo2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Obontu)Alemu et al. 2022 | Obontu2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Ogolcho)Alemu et al. 2022 | Ogolcho2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Selam)Alemu et al. 2022 | Selam2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Tay)Alemu et al. 2022 | Tay2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Yerer)Alemu et al. 2022 | Yerer2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAli et al. 2020 | wheat, all samples2017–2018Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 32–160 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainAli et al. 2020 | wheat, all samples2017–2018 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAli et al. 2020 | wheat, all samples2017–2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainAltunay et al. 2023 | WheatCollection date unreported | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of MobarakehCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of NatanzCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of ZarrinshahrCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainGetu et al. 2022 | Wheat2020Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 1–660 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Average of 5 effluent-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 1Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 2Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 3Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 4Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 5Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | mean.Same samples: 160–590 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 12–538 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | All wheat samples2021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 12–537 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | All wheat samples2021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 12021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 12–34 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 12021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 12021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 22021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 35–69 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 22021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 22021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 32021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 70–99 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 32021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 32021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 42021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 100–193 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 42021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 42021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 5 (Pi > 2 (pollution))2021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 194–537 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 5 (Pi > 2 (pollution))2021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | Cd category 5 (Pi > 2 (pollution))2021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMari et al. 2016 | Local market no. 1Collection date unreported | sample value. | ||
| Wheat grainMari et al. 2016 | Local market no. 2Collection date unreported | sample value. | ||
| Wheat grainMari et al. 2016 | Local market no. 3Collection date unreported | sample value. | ||
| Wheat grainMeghdad et al. 2015 | Sardari wheat sample2014Dry weight | max. | ||
| Wheat grainMeghdad et al. 2015 | wheat, all brands2014Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 38–1,990 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainMeghdad et al. 2015 | wheat, all brands2014Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMojgan et al. 2017 | 35 silages of Golestan provinceCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean.Same samples: 8–31 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainMojgan et al. 2017 | 35 silages of Golestan provinceCollection date unreportedDry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMotta-Romero et al. 2021 | Fungicide2017–2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMotta-Romero et al. 2021 | No fungicide2017–2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainRubio et al. 2023 | Wheat (Madeira)Collection date unreported | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainXu et al. 2022 | Wheat fieldsCollection date unreportedDry weight | median.Same samples: 70–720 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Wheat grainXu et al. 2022 | Wheat fieldsCollection date unreportedDry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainXu et al. 2022 | Wheat fieldsCollection date unreportedDry weight | share above limit. | ||
42 findings · 3 studies · 23 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2004–2019 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2009–2017 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. durum2018–2019Dry weight | median.Same samples: 3.1–18.3 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. durum2018–2019Dry weight | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. durum2019–2020Dry weight | median.Same samples: 2.9–24.8 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. durum2019–2020Dry weight | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. turgidum ssp. polonicum2018–2019Dry weight | median.Same samples: 4.2–13.7 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. turgidum ssp. polonicum2018–2019Dry weight | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. turgidum ssp. polonicum2019–2020Dry weight | median.Same samples: 1.5–24.4 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. turgidum ssp. polonicum2019–2020Dry weight | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. turgidum ssp. turanicum2018–2019Dry weight | median.Same samples: 4.1–23.2 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. turgidum ssp. turanicum2018–2019Dry weight | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. turgidum ssp. turanicum2019–2020Dry weight | median.Same samples: 1.5–29.8 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPalombieri et al. 2023 | T. turgidum ssp. turanicum2019–2020Dry weight | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | all 346 samples2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 2–147 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | all 346 samples2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | all 346 samples2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Australia2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 7–9 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Australia2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Australia2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Canada2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 2–147 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Canada2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Canada2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Kazakhstan2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 2–67 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Kazakhstan2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Kazakhstan2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Russia2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 2–63 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Russia2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Russia2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Turkey2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 9–18 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Turkey2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Turkey2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in USA2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 30–141 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in USA2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in USA2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 2–141 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 2–147 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 2–108 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 14–72 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20152015 | mean.Same samples: 9–147 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20152015 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20152015 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20162016 | mean.Same samples: 2–108 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20162016 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20162016 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20172017 | mean.Same samples: 2–125 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20172017 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20172017 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20182018 | mean.Same samples: 2–117 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20182018 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20182018 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20192019 | mean.Same samples: 10–67 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20192019 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20192019 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20202020 | mean.Same samples: 2–61 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20202020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20202020 | range. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2019 | median. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2006–2017 | median. | ||
8 findings · 3 studies | ||||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2020 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2014–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2004 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling1998–2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat branEDIBLE et al. 2017 | Wheat branCollection date unreported | mean. | ||
| Wheat branSlepecka et al. 2017 | D ecological wheat branCollection date unreported | mean. | ||
| Wheat branSlepecka et al. 2017 | d non-ecological wheat branCollection date unreported | not detected. | ||
3 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2019 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2005 | median. | ||
5 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2004–2019 | median. | ||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2005–2006 | median. | ||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2004–2016 | median. | ||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2014 | median. | ||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainShindoh et al. 2010 | Roasted and crushed wheatCollection date unreported | mean. | ||
2 findings · 1 study · 3 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Wheat grain and flour (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B3. Wheat grains and flour2003–2007 | mean.Same samples: 158 µg/kg (maximum); 0.5 µg/kg (5th percentile); 80 µg/kg (95th percentile) | ||
| Wheat grain and flour (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B3. Wheat grains and flour2003–2007 | median. | ||
| Wheat grain and flour (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B3. Wheat grains and flour2003–2007 | max. | ||
| Wheat grain and flour (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B3. Wheat grains and flour2003–2007 | 5th percentile. | ||
| Wheat grain and flour (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B3. Wheat grains and flour2003–2007 | 95th percentile. | ||
2 findings · 1 study · 3 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Cereal bran and germ (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B1. Bran and germ2003–2007 | mean.Same samples: 220 µg/kg (maximum); 13 µg/kg (5th percentile); 130 µg/kg (95th percentile) | ||
| Cereal bran and germ (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B1. Bran and germ2003–2007 | median. | ||
| Cereal bran and germ (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B1. Bran and germ2003–2007 | max. | ||
| Cereal bran and germ (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B1. Bran and germ2003–2007 | 5th percentile. | ||
| Cereal bran and germ (EU category, not separated)EFSA 2009 | 01B1. Bran and germ2003–2007 | 95th percentile. | ||
52 findings · 17 studies · 8 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region AFRO; random sampling2012Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling1997Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2001–2020 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2012–2016 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region SEARO2009 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2003–2005Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2004–2013 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | all nine wheat samples2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Ethiopia wheat flour2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Ethiopian wheat flour2017Dry weight | below detection. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported2017Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported wheat flour2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported wheat flour2017Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grain (Kakaba)Alemu et al. 2022 | Kakaba2017–2018Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Local2017Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grain (Mossobo)Alemu et al. 2022 | Mossobo2017–2018Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grain (Obontu)Alemu et al. 2022 | Obontu2017–2018Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grain (Ogolcho)Alemu et al. 2022 | Ogolcho2017–2018Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grain (Selam)Alemu et al. 2022 | Selam2017–2018Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grain (Tay)Alemu et al. 2022 | Tay2017–2018Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grain (Yerer)Alemu et al. 2022 | Yerer2017–2018Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grainAli et al. 2020 | wheat, all samples2017–2018Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 27–639 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainAli et al. 2020 | wheat, all samples2017–2018 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAli et al. 2020 | wheat, all samples2017–2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of MobarakehCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of NatanzCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of ZarrinshahrCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainGetu et al. 2022 | Wheat2020Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 28–1,100 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Average of 5 effluent-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 1Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 2Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 3Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 4Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 5Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | mean.Same samples: 150–400 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 1–311 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | mean.Same samples: 0–108 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMari et al. 2016 | Local market no. 1Collection date unreported | sample value. | ||
| Wheat grainMari et al. 2016 | Local market no. 2Collection date unreported | sample value. | ||
| Wheat grainMari et al. 2016 | Local market no. 3Collection date unreported | sample value. | ||
| Wheat grainMeghdad et al. 2015 | wheat, all brands2014Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 540–4,890 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainMeghdad et al. 2015 | wheat, all brands2014Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMitra et al. 2015 | Wheat, Isfahan Province marketsCollection date unreported | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grainMojgan et al. 2017 | 35 silages of Golestan provinceCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean.Same samples: 13–140 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainMojgan et al. 2017 | 35 silages of Golestan provinceCollection date unreportedDry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainRubio et al. 2023 | Wheat (Madeira)Collection date unreported | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainXu et al. 2022 | Wheat fieldsCollection date unreportedDry weight | median.Same samples: 70–270 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Wheat grainXu et al. 2022 | Wheat fieldsCollection date unreportedDry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainXu et al. 2022 | Wheat fieldsCollection date unreportedDry weight | samples above limit. | ||
36 findings · 2 studies · 17 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2007–2019 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | all 346 samples2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–249 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | all 346 samples2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | all 346 samples2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Australia2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–32 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Australia2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Australia2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Canada2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–130 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Canada2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Canada2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Kazakhstan2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–99 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Kazakhstan2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Kazakhstan2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Russia2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–73 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Russia2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Russia2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Turkey2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–249 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Turkey2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in Turkey2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in USA2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–123 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in USA2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | Grown in USA2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–184 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–63 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–118 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | mean.Same samples: 6–249 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | season of production/importation:2015–2020 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20152015 | mean.Same samples: 6–249 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20152015 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20152015 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20162016 | mean.Same samples: 6–130 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20162016 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20162016 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20172017 | mean.Same samples: 6–99 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20172017 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20172017 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20182018 | mean.Same samples: 6–43 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20182018 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20182018 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20192019 | mean.Same samples: 6–36 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20192019 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20192019 | range. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20202020 | mean.Same samples: 6–73 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20202020 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | year of sampling/importation 20202020 | range. | ||
3 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2019 | median. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2015 | median. | ||
8 findings · 3 studies | ||||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2019 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2013–2014 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2004–2012 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling1998–2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat branEDIBLE et al. 2017 | Wheat branCollection date unreported | below detection. | ||
| Wheat branSlepecka et al. 2017 | D ecological wheat branCollection date unreported | mean. | ||
| Wheat branSlepecka et al. 2017 | d non-ecological wheat branCollection date unreported | mean. | ||
4 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2016 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2013–2014 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2005 | median. | ||
4 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2004–2019 | median. | ||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2010 | median. | ||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2013–2015 | median. | ||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2013 | median. | ||
20 findings · 8 studies · 4 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2007–2023 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2016–2022 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2010–2022 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union2001–2014 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union2000–2012 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union; unknown2002–2013 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2005 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 80–1,500 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | mean.Same samples: 120–210 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainKumar et al. 2024 | <100 µg/Kg bin2021–2023 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainKumar et al. 2024 | 101-200 µg/Kg bin2021–2023 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainKumar et al. 2024 | 201-500 µg/Kg bin2021–2023 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainKumar et al. 2024 | wheat samples of households2021–2023 | max. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 36–132 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | mean.Same samples: 0–36 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMitra et al. 2015 | Wheat, Isfahan Province marketsCollection date unreported | 95% upper confidence limit of the mean. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2010–2023 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2007–2022 | median. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2009–2023 | median. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2012–2023 | median. | ||
3 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2009–2023 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2014 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling1998–2001 | median. | ||
3 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2014–2023 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2005 | median. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2009–2023 | median. | ||
7 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2012–2022 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2009 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2011–2014 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainEFSA 2014 | Wheat grain2003–2012 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainEFSA 2014 | Wheat grain2003–2012 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainEFSA 2014 | Wheat grain2003–2012 | mean. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2018–2021 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2016–2017 | median. | ||
5 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2017 | median. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2017 | median. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainEFSA 2014 | Spelt grain2003–2012 | mean. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainEFSA 2014 | Spelt grain2003–2012 | mean. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainEFSA 2014 | Spelt grain2003–2012 | mean. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2016–2020 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2012–2014 | median. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2021 | median. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2022 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2016–2017 | median. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2016–2017 | median. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2017 | median. | ||
8 findings · 4 studies · 2 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2000–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000–2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2010–2015 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2005 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | mean.Same samples: 3–30 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | mean.Same samples: 0–4.8 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | range. | ||
| Wheat grainRubio et al. 2023 | Wheat (Madeira)Collection date unreported | mean. | ||
2 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2012–2017 | median. | ||
| Durum and other tetraploid wheat grainPompa et al. 2021 | all 346 samples2015–2020 | below detection. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2004–2017 | median. | ||
4 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2004–2016 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2015–2017 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling1998 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling1998–2001 | median. | ||
4 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2004–2015 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2005 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling2001 | median. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2005–2017 | median. | ||
33 findings · 11 studies · 5 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | all nine wheat samples2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Ethiopia wheat flour2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Ethiopian wheat flour2017Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported wheat flour2017Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 942–1,130 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Imported wheat flour2017Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grain (Kakaba)Alemu et al. 2022 | Kakaba2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAlemu et al. 2022 | Local2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Mossobo)Alemu et al. 2022 | Mossobo2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Obontu)Alemu et al. 2022 | Obontu2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Ogolcho)Alemu et al. 2022 | Ogolcho2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Selam)Alemu et al. 2022 | Selam2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Tay)Alemu et al. 2022 | Tay2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grain (Yerer)Alemu et al. 2022 | Yerer2017–2018Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of MobarakehCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of NatanzCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainAnahita et al. 2015 | Wheat of ZarrinshahrCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 95–3,600 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Average of 5 effluent-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 1Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 2Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 3Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 4Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 5Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | mean.Same samples: 300–880 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 0–5,030 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMari-Ann et al. 1984 | Whole wheatCollection date unreported | mean.Same samples: 100–800 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainMari-Ann et al. 1984 | Whole wheatCollection date unreported | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMeghdad et al. 2015 | one wheat sample2014Dry weight | not detected. | ||
| Wheat grainMeghdad et al. 2015 | wheat, all brands2014Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainMitra et al. 2015 | Wheat, Isfahan Province marketsCollection date unreported | 95% upper confidence limit of the mean. | ||
23 findings · 9 studies · 8 spread figures folded in | ||||
| Wheat grainGetu et al. 2022 | Wheat2020Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 240–3,400 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2014 | wheat2012Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainIslam et al. 2015 | Wheat2012 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Average of 5 effluent-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 1Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 2Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 3Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 4Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJaishree et al. 2015 | Site 5Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | mean.Same samples: 180–1,830 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainJiang et al. 2020 | Wheat2018 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 96–8,550 µg/kg (range) (read from a figure) | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | median. | ||
| Wheat grainLi et al. 2022 | all samples, Bijie City, Guizhou2021Dry weight | range. | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | mean.Same samples: 0–557 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainLiu et al. 2025 | WheatCollection date unreported | range. | ||
| Wheat grainMeghdad et al. 2015 | wheat, all brands2014Dry weight | mean. | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | all samples2001 | mean.Same samples: up to 183 µg/kg (range maximum) | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | all samples2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | all samples2001 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Kujawsko-Pomorskie2001 | mean.Same samples: up to 131 µg/kg (range maximum) | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Kujawsko-Pomorskie2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Kujawsko-Pomorskie2001 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Lubelskie2001 | mean.Same samples: up to 51 µg/kg (range maximum) | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Lubelskie2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Lubelskie2001 | range. | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Mazowieckie2001 | mean.Same samples: up to 183 µg/kg (range maximum) | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Mazowieckie2001 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainReczajska et al. 2005 | Mazowieckie2001 | range. | ||
3 findings · 2 studies · 1 spread figure folded in | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainStahl et al. 2017 | WheatCollection date unreported | mean.Same samples: 1,000–19,000 µg/kg (range) | ||
| Wheat grainStahl et al. 2017 | WheatCollection date unreported | median. | ||
| Wheat grainStahl et al. 2017 | WheatCollection date unreported | range. | ||
2 findings · 1 study · 1 spread figure folded in | ||||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainStahl et al. 2017 | SpeltCollection date unreported | mean.Same samples: up to 3,000 µg/kg (range maximum) | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainStahl et al. 2017 | SpeltCollection date unreported | median. | ||
| Spelt, einkorn and emmer grainStahl et al. 2017 | SpeltCollection date unreported | range. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2005 | median. | ||
| Wheat grainWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling2001 | median. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling1998 | median. | ||
| Wheat branWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling1998 | median. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2005 | median. | ||
| Wheat germWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; targeted sampling2001 | median. | ||
Shared dataset methods and interpretation
Source summaries retain their original statistic, material, basis and censoring. Each source drawer identifies methods and overlapping samples. No matched reference or pooled distribution is inferred.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, Cd · 3 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, Cd · 3 sampling families. Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 124 | 124 | 175 |
| Alternative weighting | 124 | 124 | 175 |
11 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 2 | 33% |
| Alemu et al. 2022 | 8 | 33% |
| Li et al. 2022 | 1 | 33% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a dry weight basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-dry-Cd:f7d3e95d0592
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 2 sampling families. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 17–20 (bounded) | 24.5–25 (bounded) | 36.5 |
| Alternative weighting | 17–20 (bounded) | 24.5–25 (bounded) | 36.5 |
34 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 31 | 50% |
| Mari et al. 2016 | 3 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-Cd:72d5eb20f3ee
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 2 sampling families. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 20 | 30.5–32.5 (bounded) | 73 |
| Alternative weighting | 20 | 30.5–32.5 (bounded) | 73 |
20 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 14 | 50% |
| Pompa et al. 2021 | 6 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible durum and other tetraploid wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-durum-grain-native-Cd:3dfc88c68bc7
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 28.5 | 31.8 | 34 |
| Alternative weighting | 28.5 | 31.8 | 34 |
16 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 16 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible spelt, einkorn and emmer grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-hulled-grain-native-Cd:518ad8b3569d
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 46 | 65 | 74 |
| Alternative weighting | 46 | 65 | 74 |
19 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 19 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat bran sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-bran-native-Cd:fa91c6673e67
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 72 | 97.3 | 130 |
| Alternative weighting | 72 | 97.3 | 130 |
14 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 14 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat germ sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-germ-native-Cd:03ca2d26e6b6
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 2 sampling families. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 25 | 48 | 57 |
| Alternative weighting | 25 | 48 | 57 |
16 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 15 | 50% |
| Shindoh et al. 2010 | 1 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-processed-grain-native-Cd:7617d2242295
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain and flour (eu category, not separated), as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain and flour (eu category, not separated), as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 26 | 26 | 26 |
| Alternative weighting | 26 | 26 | 26 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| EFSA 2009 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain and flour (eu category, not separated) sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-and-flour-native-Cd:7e6446645b1d
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: cereal bran and germ (eu category, not separated), as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: cereal bran and germ (eu category, not separated), as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cd · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 61.5 | 61.5 | 61.5 |
| Alternative weighting | 61.5 | 61.5 | 61.5 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| EFSA 2009 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible cereal bran and germ (eu category, not separated) sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-bran-and-germ-native-Cd:fe3fd75634b0
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, Pb · 3 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, Pb · 3 sampling families. Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤6 | ≤29 | 29–73 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤6 | ≤29 | 29–73 (bounded) |
14 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 5 | 33% |
| Alemu et al. 2022 | 8 | 33% |
| Li et al. 2022 | 1 | 33% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a dry weight basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-dry-Pb:ffe3f0766870
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤10 | ≤19 | 10–24 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤10 | ≤19 | 10–24 (bounded) |
29 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 29 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-Pb:fcb1e24c0422
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 2 sampling families. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤12 | ≤12 | ≤25.5 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤12 | ≤12 | ≤25.5 |
17 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 11 | 50% |
| Pompa et al. 2021 | 6 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible durum and other tetraploid wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-durum-grain-native-Pb:a0ce40c199a7
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤14 | ≤20 | ≤40 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤14 | ≤20 | ≤40 |
18 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 18 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible spelt, einkorn and emmer grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-hulled-grain-native-Pb:fde77e08e582
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤10 | ≤20 | 4.5–40 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤10 | ≤20 | 4.5–40 (bounded) |
19 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 19 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat bran sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-bran-native-Pb:788a4f5e53ad
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤5 | ≤21 | 17.4–75.5 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤5 | ≤21 | 17.4–75.5 (bounded) |
12 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 12 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat germ sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-germ-native-Pb:61d812c207dd
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Pb · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤7 | ≤20 | 2.4–30 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤7 | ≤20 | 2.4–30 (bounded) |
17 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 17 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-processed-grain-native-Pb:d489f4bcf78e
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤20 | ≤30 | ≤40 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤20 | ≤30 | ≤40 |
32 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 32 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-tAs:bd01deb9055f
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, tAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, tAs · 1 sampling family. Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 54 | 54 | 54 |
| Alternative weighting | 54 | 54 | 54 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Li et al. 2022 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a dry weight basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-dry-tAs:f12cb4a869e2
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤12 | ≤38.5 | 15–70 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤12 | ≤38.5 | 15–70 (bounded) |
11 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 11 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible durum and other tetraploid wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-durum-grain-native-tAs:8cb0c1c8992c
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤10 | ≤40 | ≤50 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤10 | ≤40 | ≤50 |
14 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 14 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible spelt, einkorn and emmer grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-hulled-grain-native-tAs:e79e7be4a510
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤20 | ≤38 | ≤50 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤20 | ≤38 | ≤50 |
11 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 11 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat bran sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-bran-native-tAs:067a0c38cee8
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤12 | 12–40 (bounded) | 65–85 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤12 | 12–40 (bounded) | 65–85 (bounded) |
3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 3 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat germ sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-germ-native-tAs:3f97656e9714
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤21 | ≤34.5 | ≤60 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤21 | ≤34.5 | ≤60 |
10 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 10 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-processed-grain-native-tAs:350075438f7a
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤10 | 2.12–20 (bounded) | 4.66–25 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤10 | 2.12–20 (bounded) | 4.66–25 (bounded) |
13 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 13 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-iAs:de20a03213c1
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤20 | ≤30 | ≤40 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤20 | ≤30 | ≤40 |
2 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 2 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible durum and other tetraploid wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-durum-grain-native-iAs:48b4646c361a
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 171 | 171 | 171 |
| Alternative weighting | 171 | 171 | 171 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible spelt, einkorn and emmer grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-hulled-grain-native-iAs:59f55ecc0e3e
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤15.9 | ≤20 | 15.9–28 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤15.9 | ≤20 | 15.9–28 (bounded) |
7 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 7 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat bran sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-bran-native-iAs:e8eeb5fc3e6e
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, iAs · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 32 | 32 | 32 |
| Alternative weighting | 32 | 32 | 32 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-processed-grain-native-iAs:11f57c2d1543
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, DMA · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, DMA · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤20 | ≤20 | ≤20 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤20 | ≤20 | ≤20 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-DMA:a3462ca882b0
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤1.21 | ≤5 | 0.16–5 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤1.21 | ≤5 | 0.16–5 (bounded) |
17 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 17 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-tHg:eff70ac791e0
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: durum and other tetraploid wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤5 | ≤5 | ≤5 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤5 | ≤5 | ≤5 |
5 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 5 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible durum and other tetraploid wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-durum-grain-native-tHg:a707f762f712
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤5 | ≤5 | ≤6 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤5 | ≤5 | ≤6 |
13 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 13 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible spelt, einkorn and emmer grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-hulled-grain-native-tHg:be98291ffbd1
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤1.85 | ≤4.35 | 1–6.5 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤1.85 | ≤4.35 | 1–6.5 (bounded) |
8 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 8 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat bran sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-bran-native-tHg:f198872b4955
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤1.4 | 0.767–4 (bounded) | 4–50 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤1.4 | 0.767–4 (bounded) | 4–50 (bounded) |
6 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 6 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat germ sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-germ-native-tHg:06ff8361925c
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, tHg · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤3.5 | 0.1–5.5 (bounded) | 2–10 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤3.5 | 0.1–5.5 (bounded) | 2–10 (bounded) |
6 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 6 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible hulled, cracked, rolled or parboiled grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-processed-grain-native-tHg:c9a56e370aca
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, Ni · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, Ni · 2 sampling families. Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 468 | 468 | 561 |
| Alternative weighting | 468 | 468 | 561 |
10 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Alemu et al. 2022 | 9 | 50% |
| Li et al. 2022 | 1 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a dry weight basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-dry-Ni:dcdd0055fbd9
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, Cr · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, dry weight, Cr · 1 sampling family. Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 1490 | 1490 | 1490 |
| Alternative weighting | 1490 | 1490 | 1490 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Li et al. 2022 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a dry weight basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-dry-Cr:d15bf512a11b
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cr · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Cr · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 21 | 25 | 62 |
| Alternative weighting | 21 | 25 | 62 |
3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Reczajska et al. 2005 | 3 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-Cr:e67f4ca29af4
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Al · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Al · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 3000 | 3000 | 3000 |
| Alternative weighting | 3000 | 3000 | 3000 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Stahl et al. 2017 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-Al:877e97657b80
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Al · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: spelt, einkorn and emmer grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Al · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 370 | 370 | 370 |
| Alternative weighting | 370 | 370 | 370 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Stahl et al. 2017 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible spelt, einkorn and emmer grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-hulled-grain-native-Al:6469575f3758
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Sn · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat grain, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Sn · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 100–130 (bounded) | 100–130 (bounded) | 100–130 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | 100–130 (bounded) | 100–130 (bounded) | 100–130 (bounded) |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat grain sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-grain-native-Sn:d5c2764ed043
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Sn · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat bran, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Sn · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Alternative weighting | 20 | 20 | 20 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat bran sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-bran-native-Sn:c6e5cf1a3512
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Sn · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI wheat reference: wheat germ, as sold, fresh or basis not stated, Sn · 1 sampling family. As sold, fresh or basis not stated, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 100–130 (bounded) | 100–130 (bounded) | 100–130 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | 100–130 (bounded) | 100–130 (bounded) | 100–130 (bounded) |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians from every compatible wheat germ sampling family in the evidence ledger on a as sold, fresh or basis not stated basis: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), published subgroup medians and per-sample or per-variety results. Each family has equal total weight; subgroups have equal weight within a family. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Dry-weight and as-sold results form separate references, and grain from point-source contaminated sites is compared within its own study but does not set the reference.
Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.
Limitations
An international evidence-library reference, not a probability sample of the world wheat market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. Many submissions are non-detects with differing limits, which widens the bounds. As-sold results combine labels such as “as is”, “as consumed”, fresh weight and unstated bases without moisture conversion. Only one sampling family supplies compatible units for this scope after the complete ledger, so it cannot represent other markets. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.
Admitted source families
Reference version and interpretation
Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.
hmi-pooled-reference-v2:wheat-germ-native-Sn:b008d3a26be6
The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.
The source reports only a percentile, range or maximum for these samples, with no mean or median to place against the reference. Spread figures that do have a mean or median are shown on that row instead.
The value could not be reconciled with its own paper, so it is shown but not compared.
The result is below a reporting limit, and the range from zero to that limit crosses more than one band.
No medians or sample values exist for this form and metal, so no HMI reference could be built.
The HMI reference for this form has fewer than four units or no measurable spread, below the display minimum.
Reporting limits overlap the study comparison, so no direction can be shown.
No findings match these filters. Change the selection or reset to show all source findings.
How metals reach wheat grain
Metals reach wheat grain mainly through the roots from soil and irrigation water, and their uptake depends on soil cadmium, soil pH, zinc supply and the plant’s genetics.5Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsScientific ReportsRead source →6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →21Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainACS OmegaRead source → In a mining-area survey, grain cadmium rose with the available soil cadmium and fell as soil pH increased, and in greenhouse pots grain cadmium climbed from about 50 µg/kg on unspiked soil to more than 2,400 µg/kg when soil was spiked with 5 mg/kg cadmium.5Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsScientific ReportsRead source →21Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainACS OmegaRead source →
Point sources and naturally high-cadmium soils both matter. Near a steel mill in Isfahan, grain carried 280–310 µg/kg cadmium and 2,000–2,100 µg/kg lead against 60 and 290 µg/kg at a background site, and grain from a village beside a battery factory in Henan had 320 µg/kg cadmium.4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source → Karst soils in Guizhou with high natural cadmium gave a mean of 135 µg/kg in 102 farm samples, 45% of them above China’s 100 µg/kg limit.22Spatial distribution and risk assessment of fluorine and cadmium in rice, corn, and wheat grains in most karst regions of Guizhou province, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →
Inside the plant, the HMA3 transporter decides how much cadmium is held in the roots.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source → A non-functional version of its gene, carried by 68% of modern durum cultivars, gives two- to threefold more cadmium transport to shoots and grain, which helps explain why durum accumulates more than common wheat.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →
Which wheat types and origins measured lower
For cadmium, wheat type is the clearest supported difference. Within European monitoring, soft wheat grain had a median of 20 µg/kg (1,952 results) and durum grain 70 µg/kg (473 results); 21% of durum results were above 100 µg/kg against 1.5% of soft wheat.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Spelt, einkorn and emmer grain had a median of 31 µg/kg, close to common wheat, and hulled, cracked or rolled grain such as bulgur and flakes 22–23 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → This is a supported pattern for cadmium, consistent with the genetics of durum, not a guarantee for any lot.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →
Among imported durum lots sampled in Italy in 2015–2020, cadmium medians were lowest for grain grown in Australia (8.5 µg/kg, 4 lots) and Turkey (17 µg/kg, 10 lots), then Russia (20 µg/kg, 105 lots) and Kazakhstan (25 µg/kg, 151 lots), and highest for Canada (54 µg/kg, 51 lots) and the United States (94 µg/kg, 25 lots).7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → The Russian and Kazakh lots are numerous enough to call tentatively lower than North American durum; the Australian and Turkish figures rest on too few lots for a sourcing preference, and lead pointed the other way, with Turkish durum the highest.7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → Among Ethiopian varieties grown at research centres, the local Wolaita wheat had 47 µg/kg cadmium against 199 µg/kg for the variety Ogolcho, on a dry-weight basis.14Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaJournal of Nutritional ScienceRead source →
Lead, arsenic and mercury offer fewer usable contrasts because most monitoring results are non-detects.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Where lead was measured above detection, background farmland differed sharply from contaminated sites, as in Isfahan (290 against 2,000–2,100 µg/kg), and Bijie grain had a lead median of 29 µg/kg.3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source → Total arsenic in Bijie grain had a median of 54 µg/kg, and households in arsenic-affected districts of Bihar reported raw wheat from below 100 to 500 µg/kg, so groundwater arsenic regions are the main exception to the low arsenic of most wheat.3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →23High Arsenic Contamination in the Breast Milk of Mothers Inhabiting the Gangetic Plains of Bihar: A Major Health Risk to InfantsEnvironmental Health 23(1)Read source →
Chromium and nickel varied by region more than by wheat type. In Poland, grain from Lubelskie had a chromium mean of 23 µg/kg against 62 µg/kg in Kujawsko-Pomorskie, and nickel in Ethiopian varieties ranged from 164 to 817 µg/kg.14Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaJournal of Nutritional ScienceRead source →15Determination of Chromium Content of Food and Beverages of Plant OriginPolish Journal of Food and Nutrition SciencesRead source → The cadmium origin comparisons do not carry over to these metals, and none of the evidence ranks a country as lowest for every metal.7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source →15Determination of Chromium Content of Food and Beverages of Plant OriginPolish Journal of Food and Nutrition SciencesRead source →
Is durum wheat higher in cadmium than common wheat?
Yes, in the monitoring and genetic evidence: European durum grain had a cadmium median of 70 µg/kg against 20 µg/kg for soft wheat, and 21% of durum results exceeded 100 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Most modern durum cultivars carry an HMA3 allele that raises cadmium transport to the grain two- to threefold, and the EU sets a higher durum limit of 180 µg/kg to reflect this.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →
Which durum origins measured lowest in cadmium?
At Italian border controls in 2015–2020, durum from Australia (median 8.5 µg/kg, 4 lots), Turkey (17), Russia (20) and Kazakhstan (25) was lower than durum from Canada (54) and the United States (94).7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → Turkish durum had the highest lead, so an origin chosen for cadmium should still be tested for lead.7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source →
Do some wheat varieties accumulate less cadmium?
Yes. Durum cultivars with the functional HMA3 allele accumulate less cadmium, Polish wheat (Triticum polonicum) was lower than durum and Khorasan wheat grown in the same Italian field, and Ethiopian varieties ranged from 47 to 199 µg/kg.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →11Characterization of Triticum turgidum sspp. durum, turanicum, and polonicum grown in Central Italy in relation to technological and nutritional aspectsFrontiers in Plant ScienceRead source →14Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaJournal of Nutritional ScienceRead source → In a Nebraska trial of 18 hard winter wheat cultivars, newer cultivars carried slightly more cadmium, about 0.4 µg/kg per year of registration.24Effects of foliar fungicide on yield, micronutrients, and cadmium in grains from historical and modern hard winter wheat genotypesPLoS ONERead source →
Milling fractions and processing
Milling separates the bran and germ, where cadmium is concentrated, from the starchy endosperm that becomes white flour.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →12Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source → Monitoring medians were 64 µg/kg for bran and 110 µg/kg for germ against 28–29 µg/kg for whole grain, and inorganic arsenic was also higher in bran (median 14–17 µg/kg) than in grain.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → The European cadmium opinion likewise reported bran and germ at a mean of 64.7 µg/kg against 30.0 µg/kg for wheat grains and flour.12Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source →
A review citing durum milling studies reports that milling reduced nickel most, then arsenic, cadmium and lead, but gives no measured percentages.25toxic metals like arsenic, cadmium and lead; as well as process contaminants such as acrylamide.Peer-reviewed articleRead source → Flour and finished foods are assessed on their own pages, so this page does not state how much cadmium a given flour retains.
No study in the library measured cleaning, sorting or washing of wheat grain against a control for metals. Roasting and crushing grain for soy sauce did not remove cadmium: the roasted, crushed wheat used in one Japanese brewing study still carried 57 µg/kg.26Changes in Cadmium Content when Processing Soybean to Miso and Soy SauceReport of the National Food Research Institute (Rep. Nat’l Food Res. Inst), No. 74Read source →
Does removing bran and germ lower cadmium?
It moves cadmium out of the main stream: bran (median 64 µg/kg) and germ (110 µg/kg) carry more than whole grain (28–29 µg/kg), so flour milled from the endosperm carries less than the grain it came from.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → The removed bran and germ keep the cadmium, which is why the EU sets higher limits for them (150 and 200 µg/kg).2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →
Mitigation from field to mill
Controls for wheat act mainly in the field: choosing soils and sites, wheat type and cultivar, zinc nutrition and crop protection.4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source →6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →21Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainACS OmegaRead source →24Effects of foliar fungicide on yield, micronutrients, and cadmium in grains from historical and modern hard winter wheat genotypesPLoS ONERead source → Measured effects come from a field trial with fungicide, a greenhouse zinc trial on spiked soil and genetic studies of durum; site and pH comparisons are observational.5Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsScientific ReportsRead source →6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →21Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainACS OmegaRead source →24Effects of foliar fungicide on yield, micronutrients, and cadmium in grains from historical and modern hard winter wheat genotypesPLoS ONERead source → After harvest, separating bran and germ lowers cadmium in the remaining fraction, and lot testing against the right limit detects high lots without removing anything.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →8Evaluation of certain food contaminants — Sixty-fourth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food AdditivesWHO Technical Report Series 930 (Sixty-fourth meeting of JECFA, Rome, 8-17 February 2005)Read source →
Filter findings
12 control comparisons
About this table
| Control | Material | Effects | Evidence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choose durum cultivars with the functional HMA3 allelecultivation · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Decreased | 1Maccaferri et al. 2019 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedTwo- to threefold lower transport to grain with the functional alleleGrain cadmiumB1a versus B1b linesGrain as reportedNot quantified · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. Near-isogenic lines and a global durum collection, B1a versus B1b. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context The non-functional TdHMA3-B1b allele gives two- to threefold more cadmium transport to shoots and grain than the functional B1a allele; a PCR marker distinguishes low- and high-cadmium lines.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Durum breeding and cultivar choice; 68% of modern durum cultivars carry the high-cadmium allele. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
No grain concentrations in the main text. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Durum breeding and cultivar choice; 68% of modern durum cultivars carry the high-cadmium allele. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Consider low-cadmium tetraploid wheatscultivation · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Decreased | 1Palombieri et al. 2023 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower in Polish wheat (2019 medians, read from a figure)Median grain cadmiumDurum versus Polish wheat, 2019Dry weightLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (6.7 − 8.3) / 8.3 × 100 = -19.3%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Subspecies grown side by side, two seasons. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Polish wheat (Triticum polonicum) had significantly lower grain cadmium than durum and Khorasan wheat grown in the same field over two seasons; one accession was lowest in both.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. One low-cadmium site; absolute differences are a few µg/kg. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Rankings were not stable between years; values near the method’s quantification range. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification One low-cadmium site; absolute differences are a few µg/kg. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fungicide at booting on high-cadmium soilcultivation · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Decreased Cd · Decreased | 1Motta-Romero et al. 2021 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower with fungicide (upper end of cultivar range)Grain cadmium, cultivar meansUntreated versus fungicideGrain as reportedModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (140 − 190) / 190 × 100 = -26.3%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. CadmiumDecreasedLower with fungicide (lower end of cultivar range)Grain cadmium, cultivar meansUntreated versus fungicideGrain as reportedModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (70 − 100) / 100 × 100 = -30.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Untreated plots of the same cultivars, site and years. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context A single metconazole application at booting lowered the range of cultivar grain cadmium means from 100–190 to 70–140 µg/kg.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. One site with naturally elevated soil cadmium; one fungicide chemistry. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Attributed to yield dilution; other chemistries untested. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification One site with naturally elevated soil cadmium; one fungicide chemistry. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Screen modern cultivars for cadmiumcultivation · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Increased | 1Motta-Romero et al. 2021 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumIncreasedHigher in newer cultivars (0.4 µg/kg per year)Grain cadmiumOlder versus newer cultivarsGrain as reportedNot quantified · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. Regression on registration year, 18 cultivars. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Without fungicide, grain cadmium rose by about 0.4 µg/kg per year of cultivar registration.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. One site; hard winter wheat only. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Regression slope; cultivar values are in an unavailable supplement. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification One site; hard winter wheat only. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Soil plus foliar zinc on zinc-deficient soilcultivation · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Decreased Cd · Decreased | 1Ozkutlu et al. 2026 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower with foliar zinc added to high soil zinc (0.2 mg/kg Cd dose)Grain cadmiumHigh soil zinc alone versus with foliar zincDry weightLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (182.12 − 238.89) / 238.89 × 100 = -23.8%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. CadmiumDecreasedLower with high soil plus foliar zinc (1 mg/kg Cd dose)Grain cadmiumInadequate zinc versus high soil plus foliar zincDry weightModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (631.48 − 1224.32) / 1224.32 × 100 = -48.4%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Zinc treatments at each spiked soil cadmium level. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Adequate or high soil zinc with a 0.3% foliar zinc sulphate spray gave the lowest grain cadmium at each soil cadmium dose; zinc could not bring grain from soil with 1 or 5 mg/kg added cadmium below 200 µg/kg.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Zinc-deficient calcareous soil (pH 8.1); greenhouse scale. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Spiked soil; supplementary means unavailable; one text value disagrees with the figure. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Zinc-deficient calcareous soil (pH 8.1); greenhouse scale. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Selenium biofortification under mercury exposurecultivation · As reported | Wheat | tHg · Decreased tHg · Increased | 1Manivannan et al. 2023 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators Total mercuryDecreasedLower with the 1:1 selenium mixture (read from a figure)Grain total mercuryMercury only versus mixtureDry weightLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (7100 − 9200) / 9200 × 100 = -22.8%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Total mercuryIncreasedHigher with selenate (read from a figure)Grain total mercuryMercury only versus selenateDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (32000 − 9200) / 9200 × 100 = 247.8%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Mercury-only plants versus each selenium form. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Selenite or selenate alone raised grain mercury; only a 1:1 selenite–selenate mixture lowered it compared with mercury alone.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured comparison. Laboratory hydroponics only. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Bar-chart readings; no detection limit or reference material. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Laboratory hydroponics only. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Grow wheat away from point sources of metalsprimary production · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Decreased Pb · Decreased Ni · Decreased | 1Moradi et al. 2015 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower at the background site (observational)Mean grain cadmiumSteel-mill region (Zarrinshahr) versus background (Natanz)Dry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (60 − 310) / 310 × 100 = -80.6%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. LeadDecreasedLower at the background site (observational)Mean grain leadSteel-mill region versus backgroundDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (290 − 2000) / 2000 × 100 = -85.5%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. NickelDecreasedLower at the background site (observational)Mean grain nickelSteel-mill region versus backgroundDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (210 − 1420) / 1420 × 100 = -85.2%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Background region versus two steel-mill regions in the same study (three field composites each). How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Grain from the background Natanz region carried less cadmium, lead and nickel than grain from two regions beside a steel mill.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Observational survey. Site selection for new supply; one province and one study. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Observational; three composites per region; soil cadmium also differed (0.59 against 1.9–2.1 mg/kg). No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Site selection for new supply; one province and one study. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Manage soil pH on cadmium-affected fieldsprimary production · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Decreased | 1Xu et al. 2022 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower at higher soil pH (association)Grain cadmiumAcross-field regressionDry weightNot quantified · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. Regression across fields with soil pH 5.4–8.0. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Across 25 wheat fields, grain cadmium rose with available soil cadmium and fell as soil pH rose (regression coefficient −0.145 per pH unit on log grain cadmium).
Design, applicability and operating conditions Observational survey. Contaminated mining-area farmland; not a liming intervention. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Observational association; effect of deliberate liming not measured for wheat in the library. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Contaminated mining-area farmland; not a liming intervention. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Separate bran and germ in millinggrain processing · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Increased Cd · Increased | 1WHO GEMS/Food HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumIncreasedHigher in bran than whole grain (medians)Median cadmiumGrain versus branGrain as reportedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (64 − 28.5) / 28.5 × 100 = 124.6%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. CadmiumIncreasedHigher in germ than whole grain (medians)Median cadmiumGrain versus germGrain as reportedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (110 − 28.5) / 28.5 × 100 = 286.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Material medians across all submissions; not paired lots. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Bran and germ carried more cadmium than whole grain, so the endosperm fraction carries less than the grain it is milled from.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Observational survey. Applies to milling; cadmium is moved into bran and germ, not removed. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Unpaired material medians; flour itself is on its own page. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Applies to milling; cadmium is moved into bran and germ, not removed. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Milling durum wheatgrain processing · As reported | Wheat | Ni · Context Cd · Context | GuidanceThielecke and Nugent 2018 HMI source record · Original source Official guidance; not an independent experimental dataset. Reused across actions without adding studies. Effects and comparators NickelReported reduction; no valuesMilled productGrain versus milled productGrain as reportedContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. CadmiumReported reduction; no valuesMilled productGrain versus milled productGrain as reportedContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. Durum grain versus milled products (secondary citation). How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context The review reports that milling durum wheat reduced nickel most, then arsenic, cadmium and lead, without measured percentages.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Author guidance or regulatory assessment. Durum milling. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Secondary citation without numbers. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Durum milling. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Choose durum origins with lower cadmium and verify leadsourcing and procurement · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Decreased Cd · Decreased | 1Pompa et al. 2021 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower median in Russian than US durum (observational)Median grain cadmiumUnited States (25 lots) versus Russia (105 lots)Grain as reportedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (20 − 94) / 94 × 100 = -78.7%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. CadmiumDecreasedLower median in Kazakh than Canadian durum (observational)Median grain cadmiumCanada (51 lots) versus Kazakhstan (151 lots)Grain as reportedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (25 − 54) / 54 × 100 = -53.7%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Country-of-production subgroups at the same border-control laboratory. How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Durum from Russia and Kazakhstan had lower cadmium medians than durum from Canada and the United States; Turkish durum, low in cadmium, had the highest lead.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Observational survey. Durum imported into Italy; harvest years unknown. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Observational; values below quantification substituted by half the limit in the source. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Durum imported into Italy; harvest years unknown. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Enforce a cadmium maximum level on wheat lotslot acceptance and release · As reported | Wheat | Cd · Decreased Cd · Decreased | GuidanceJECFA 64th report HMI source record · Original source Official guidance; not an independent experimental dataset. Reused across actions without adding studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreased22% lower mean with a 100 µg/kg limit (modelled)Mean wheat cadmiumNo limit versus 100 µg/kg limitGrain as reportedNot quantified · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. CadmiumDecreased6% lower mean with a 200 µg/kg limit (modelled)Mean wheat cadmiumNo limit versus 200 µg/kg limitGrain as reportedNot quantified · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change. Modelled truncation of the international distribution (mean 54 µg/kg). How magnitude is classified HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage. Control in context Excluding lots above a maximum level of 100 µg/kg would lower mean wheat cadmium by 22% (10% of samples excluded), against 6% at 200 µg/kg (1% excluded); the cut in highest intake was about 6% and 1% of the tolerable intake.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Author guidance or regulatory assessment. Regulatory or buyer lot rejection. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or retained in the grain, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Modelled on 2006-era data; testing detects lots and does not remove cadmium. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Not applicable unless stated. Trade-offs and implementation Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Regulatory or buyer lot rejection. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
Provenance and assessment As disclosed by the source. Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No matching controls in this selected evidence. This is a coverage boundary, not proof that no control exists. Change or reset the filters.
Trade-offs and limits of controls
Low-cadmium choices can move the problem rather than solve it.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → A low-cadmium durum line grew less under zinc deficiency, and Turkish durum, among the lowest in cadmium at Italian border controls, had the highest lead.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → Whole-grain and bran products keep fibre and minerals that refined flour loses, but they also keep more cadmium.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →12Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source →
Some field measures help one metal and not another. Selenium given to wheat as selenite or selenate raised mercury in grain in a hydroponic experiment, and only a 1:1 mixture lowered it.27Mercury speciation in selenium enriched wheatPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Zinc fertilisation lowered grain cadmium in a spiked-soil trial, but could not bring grain from soil with 1 mg/kg added cadmium below 200 µg/kg.21Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainACS OmegaRead source →
Testing wheat for metals
A useful wheat test must quantify well below the applicable cadmium limit, which in the EU is 100 µg/kg for common wheat, 180 µg/kg for durum, 150 µg/kg for bran and 200 µg/kg for germ.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source → Monitoring laboratories reported cadmium limits of a few µg/kg, and a border-control study of durum used ICP-MS with quantification limits of 4 µg/kg cadmium and 12 µg/kg lead.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → Several surveys reported values that cannot be reconciled with their own methods, including means below their own quantification limits and results above the calibration range, so method, limits and reference-material checks should accompany every result.13Dietary Exposure to Toxic Metals (Cd, Pb and Hg) from Cereals Marketed in Madeira and the AzoresBiological Trace Element ResearchRead source →16Application of microwave-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry for ultra-trace determination of lead and cadmium in cereals and agricultural productsInternational Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 96(3):271-283Read source →19Determination of the Level of Heavy Metals in the Selected Cereals from Debre Markos Local Market, Amhara Region, EthiopiaInternational Journal of Analytical ChemistryRead source →28Heavy metal synergistic pollution risk assessment in the soil-crop system of the Nanyang BasinScientific ReportsRead source →
Report non-detects with their limit, keep the method and laboratory, and separate total from inorganic arsenic.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Most European inorganic arsenic values for wheat were estimated as 70% of total arsenic rather than measured, so a measured inorganic arsenic result is more informative than a converted one.20Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source → Arsenic measured after dry ashing at 550 °C, as in one Iranian survey, can be lost and is not used.29Health Risks from Heavy Metals via Consumption of Cereals and Vegetables in Isfahan Province, IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International JournalRead source →
Why do some studies report very high metals in wheat?
Some come from contaminated sites, such as grain beside a steel mill in Isfahan (2,000–2,100 µg/kg lead).4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source → Others do not survive a check against their own papers: a Bangladeshi survey labelled oven-dried samples as fresh weight, and an Indian effluent study gave no consistent unit.17The concentration, source and potential human health risk of heavy metals in the commonly consumed foods in BangladeshEcotoxicology and Environmental SafetyRead source →18Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →
Buying and verifying wheat
Ask for lot-specific cadmium and lead results with the laboratory’s quantification limit, compared with the limit for the exact material: EU 100 µg/kg cadmium for common wheat, 180 for durum, 150 for bran and 200 for germ, and 200 µg/kg lead for cereals.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source → Limits differ by market: Codex sets 0.2 mg/kg cadmium for wheat, China 0.1 mg/kg cadmium, 0.2 lead, 0.02 mercury, 0.5 total arsenic and 1.0 chromium, Australia and New Zealand 0.1 mg/kg cadmium, and MERCOSUR 0.20 mg/kg for cadmium, lead and arsenic in wheat and its derivatives.10General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source →30GB 2762-2022 National Food Safety Standard: Maximum Levels of Contaminants in FoodsNational Food Safety Standard GB 2762-2022Read source →31Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Schedule 19 - Maximum levels of contaminants and natural toxicantsFederal Register of Legislation, Authorised Version F2024C00908Read source →32MERCOSUR/GMC/RES. No. 12/11: Reglamento Tecnico MERCOSUR sobre Limites Maximos de Contaminantes Inorganicos en AlimentosMERCOSUR/GMC/RES. No. 12/11Read source → From July 2026 the EU also limits nickel to 0.80 mg/kg in common wheat and 1.5 mg/kg in durum.33Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsOfficial Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024)Read source →
Specify the wheat type and record the growing country and region separately from the market where the grain was bought.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → For durum, origin and cultivar both shifted cadmium in the evidence: border-control lots from Russia and Kazakhstan were lower than those from Canada and the United States, and cultivars carrying the functional HMA3 allele accumulate less.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → Ask whether fields are near mines, smelters, battery or steel plants or irrigated with wastewater, and for soil cadmium and pH where the grower knows them.4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source →5Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsScientific ReportsRead source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →
Exposure from wheat
Wheat matters for exposure because of how much is eaten.8Evaluation of certain food contaminants — Sixty-fourth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food AdditivesWHO Technical Report Series 930 (Sixty-fourth meeting of JECFA, Rome, 8-17 February 2005)Read source →34Dietary cadmium exposure assessment among the Chinese populationPLoS ONE 12(5): e0177978Read source → In China, a wheat and wheat flour monitoring group averaged 21 µg/kg cadmium in 20,925 samples and was eaten at about 145 g a day.34Dietary cadmium exposure assessment among the Chinese populationPLoS ONE 12(5): e0177978Read source → The joint FAO/WHO committee estimated that a cadmium limit of 100 µg/kg for wheat, rather than 200, would lower mean wheat cadmium by 22% but cut the highest intake by only about 6% of the tolerable intake.8Evaluation of certain food contaminants — Sixty-fourth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food AdditivesWHO Technical Report Series 930 (Sixty-fourth meeting of JECFA, Rome, 8-17 February 2005)Read source →
Bread, pasta and other products made from wheat are measured on their own pages, and this page does not transfer grain concentrations to them. In the European cadmium opinion, bread and pasta averaged 13.7 µg/kg against 30.0 µg/kg for wheat grains and flour, which reflects dilution with water and milling rather than removal.12Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source →
Evidence review and remaining gaps
This assessment covers every source record in the HMI library that is tagged to wheat or names it, plus every wheat row in WHO GEMS/Food, the FDA Total Diet Study and other indexed datasets; each has a recorded decision based on its content. The FDA Total Diet Study has no wheat grain food, only bread, cereals, pasta, flour and cream of wheat, so it contributes no rows here. Thirteen sources are held in part because their values could not be reconciled with their own methods or figures.35Evaluation of cadmium, lead, zinc and copper levels in selected ecological cereal food products and their non-ecological counterpartsCurrent Issues in Pharmacy and Medical Sciences 30(3):147-150Read source →13Dietary Exposure to Toxic Metals (Cd, Pb and Hg) from Cereals Marketed in Madeira and the AzoresBiological Trace Element ResearchRead source →14Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaJournal of Nutritional ScienceRead source →15Determination of Chromium Content of Food and Beverages of Plant OriginPolish Journal of Food and Nutrition SciencesRead source →16Application of microwave-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry for ultra-trace determination of lead and cadmium in cereals and agricultural productsInternational Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 96(3):271-283Read source →17The concentration, source and potential human health risk of heavy metals in the commonly consumed foods in BangladeshEcotoxicology and Environmental SafetyRead source →18Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →19Determination of the Level of Heavy Metals in the Selected Cereals from Debre Markos Local Market, Amhara Region, EthiopiaInternational Journal of Analytical ChemistryRead source →23High Arsenic Contamination in the Breast Milk of Mothers Inhabiting the Gangetic Plains of Bihar: A Major Health Risk to InfantsEnvironmental Health 23(1)Read source →28Heavy metal synergistic pollution risk assessment in the soil-crop system of the Nanyang BasinScientific ReportsRead source →29Health Risks from Heavy Metals via Consumption of Cereals and Vegetables in Isfahan Province, IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International JournalRead source →36Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranJournal of Food Protection 83(1):101-107Read source →
The main gaps are origin, inorganic arsenic and controlled interventions. Monitoring data identify reporting regions rather than growing countries, inorganic arsenic was measured in a few hundred grain results, and most mitigation evidence comes from pots, a single field trial or genetics rather than commercial fields.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →21Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainACS OmegaRead source →24Effects of foliar fungicide on yield, micronutrients, and cadmium in grains from historical and modern hard winter wheat genotypesPLoS ONERead source →
References identify the sources used in these answers. The Sources index preserves additional discovery links; inclusion there does not mean a source has been reviewed for this assessment. Corrections, completed searches, new direct evidence and changes in requirements should reopen the relevant answer.
Wheat FAQs
What heavy metals are found in wheat?
Cadmium is found in almost every wheat sample, typically 20–70 µg/kg depending on the wheat type, while lead, arsenic and mercury are usually below detection.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Wheat also carries nickel and chromium in the hundreds of µg/kg, and aluminium in the thousands.3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →37Migration of aluminum from food contact materials to food - a health risk for consumers? Part I of III: exposure to aluminum, release of aluminum, tolerable weekly intake (TWI), toxicological effects of aluminum, study design, and methodsEnvironmental Sciences EuropeRead source →
How do heavy metals get into wheat?
Through the roots, from soil and irrigation water; uptake rises with soil cadmium and falls as soil pH rises.5Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsScientific ReportsRead source → Fields near steel mills, battery plants and mines give grain with several times more cadmium and lead than background farmland.4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →
Is organic wheat lower in heavy metals?
The library holds no reliable comparison of organic and conventional wheat grain. The one survey of ecological bran reported cadmium values that failed checks against the paper itself, so it cannot answer the question.35Evaluation of cadmium, lead, zinc and copper levels in selected ecological cereal food products and their non-ecological counterpartsCurrent Issues in Pharmacy and Medical Sciences 30(3):147-150Read source →
Which types of wheat have the lowest cadmium?
Common (soft) wheat and spelt measured lower than durum: European medians were 20 µg/kg for soft wheat, 31 for spelt, einkorn and emmer, and 70 for durum.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Within durum, cultivars with the functional HMA3 allele accumulate less.6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →
Which countries grow wheat with the lowest cadmium?
For durum sampled at Italian border controls, Australia, Turkey, Russia and Kazakhstan were lower than Canada and the United States (medians 8.5–25 against 54–94 µg/kg).7Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsFoodsRead source → For common wheat, monitoring data identify only reporting regions, not growing countries, so no country ranking is supported.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
Do bread, pasta and flour made from wheat also contain heavy metals?
Yes, but at concentrations set by milling and recipe: in the European cadmium opinion, bread and pasta averaged 13.7 µg/kg against 30.0 for wheat grains and flour.12Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source → Each product is assessed on its own page from its own measurements.
What do the cadmium levels in wheat mean for health?
Wheat is a major dietary source of cadmium because it is a staple: the joint FAO/WHO committee estimated it at 3–29% of the tolerable intake across regional diets.8Evaluation of certain food contaminants — Sixty-fourth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food AdditivesWHO Technical Report Series 930 (Sixty-fourth meeting of JECFA, Rome, 8-17 February 2005)Read source → Cadmium accumulates in the kidney over years, so the concern is long-term intake from staple foods rather than any single meal; occurrence data alone do not establish individual risk.8Evaluation of certain food contaminants — Sixty-fourth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food AdditivesWHO Technical Report Series 930 (Sixty-fourth meeting of JECFA, Rome, 8-17 February 2005)Read source →
Are there legal limits for heavy metals in wheat?
Yes. The EU sets cadmium at 100 µg/kg for common wheat, 180 for durum, 150 for bran and 200 for germ, and lead at 200 µg/kg for cereals; Codex sets 0.2 mg/kg cadmium for wheat.2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →10General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source → China sets 0.1 mg/kg cadmium, 0.2 lead, 0.02 mercury, 0.5 total arsenic and 1.0 chromium for grain, and from July 2026 the EU limits nickel to 0.80 mg/kg in common wheat and 1.5 mg/kg in durum.30GB 2762-2022 National Food Safety Standard: Maximum Levels of Contaminants in FoodsNational Food Safety Standard GB 2762-2022Read source →33Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsOfficial Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024)Read source →
Can milling or processing reduce heavy metals in wheat?
Milling separates the cadmium-rich bran and germ from the endosperm used for white flour, but it moves cadmium rather than destroying it.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → No study in the library measured cleaning or washing grain against a control.
Is the arsenic in wheat inorganic?
Wheat contains little arsenic of any form outside groundwater-arsenic regions: inorganic arsenic in monitored grain had a median of 2–9 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Most European figures were estimated as 70% of total arsenic rather than measured, so a measured inorganic arsenic result is the better evidence.20Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →
Does whole wheat contain more cadmium than white wheat?
Whole grain contains the bran and germ, which carry more cadmium (medians 64 and 110 µg/kg) than whole grain overall (28–29 µg/kg).1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Products made from whole grain therefore keep more of the grain’s cadmium than refined flour does; flour itself is measured on the wheat flour page.12Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source →
Is spelt or ancient wheat lower in heavy metals?
For cadmium, spelt, einkorn and emmer grain had a monitoring median of 31 µg/kg, about the same as common wheat, and lower than durum.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → A German laboratory found less aluminium in spelt (median 370 µg/kg) than in wheat (3,000 µg/kg), though the table does not say whether the samples were grain or milled.37Migration of aluminum from food contact materials to food - a health risk for consumers? Part I of III: exposure to aluminum, release of aluminum, tolerable weekly intake (TWI), toxicological effects of aluminum, study design, and methodsEnvironmental Sciences EuropeRead source →
How often does wheat exceed the EU cadmium limit?
In GEMS/Food, 4.2% of common wheat grain results exceeded 100 µg/kg, 1.1% of durum results exceeded 180, 1.7% of bran results exceeded 150 and 4.2% of germ results exceeded 200.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source → Exceedance was common in high-cadmium regions: 45% of wheat from Guizhou karst soils exceeded China’s 100 µg/kg limit.22Spatial distribution and risk assessment of fluorine and cadmium in rice, corn, and wheat grains in most karst regions of Guizhou province, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →
Does zinc fertiliser lower cadmium in wheat?
In a greenhouse trial with durum on cadmium-spiked soil, adequate soil zinc plus a foliar zinc spray gave the lowest grain cadmium at every cadmium dose.21Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainACS OmegaRead source → At the 0.2 mg/kg dose grain fell from 239 to 182 µg/kg, but zinc could not bring grain from more heavily spiked soil below 200 µg/kg.21Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainACS OmegaRead source →
Do modern wheat varieties carry more cadmium?
In a Nebraska field trial of 18 hard winter wheat cultivars released between 1933 and 2013, newer cultivars carried slightly more cadmium, about 0.4 µg/kg per year of registration, without fungicide.24Effects of foliar fungicide on yield, micronutrients, and cadmium in grains from historical and modern hard winter wheat genotypesPLoS ONERead source → For durum, the high-cadmium HMA3 allele is more common in modern cultivars (68%) than in landraces (26%).6A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingNature GeneticsRead source →
Does fungicide affect cadmium in wheat?
In the same Nebraska trial, a single fungicide application at booting lowered the range of cultivar cadmium means from 100–190 to 70–140 µg/kg.24Effects of foliar fungicide on yield, micronutrients, and cadmium in grains from historical and modern hard winter wheat genotypesPLoS ONERead source → The authors attribute this to larger yields diluting cadmium and caution that other fungicide chemistries were not tested.24Effects of foliar fungicide on yield, micronutrients, and cadmium in grains from historical and modern hard winter wheat genotypesPLoS ONERead source →
Does wheat grown near mines or factories have more heavy metals?
Yes, in every such study here: grain near a steel mill in Isfahan had 280–310 µg/kg cadmium and 2,000–2,100 µg/kg lead against 60 and 290 at a background site.4A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (accepted manuscript, 29 Sep 2015)Read source → Grain beside a battery factory in Henan had 320 µg/kg cadmium, and 24 of 25 fields in a Chinese copper mining area exceeded 100 µg/kg.5Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsScientific ReportsRead source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →
Is nickel a concern in wheat?
Wheat grain carries hundreds of µg/kg of nickel: 330 µg/kg on average in an early Nordic compilation and a median of 468 µg/kg in Bijie, Guizhou.3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →38Nickel Content of Food and Estimation of Dietary IntakeZeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung 179(6):427-431Read source → From July 2026 the EU sets nickel limits of 0.80 mg/kg for common wheat and 1.5 mg/kg for durum, and the Bijie maximum (5,034 µg/kg) shows that some grain exceeds them.3Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaFrontiers in NutritionRead source →33Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsOfficial Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024)Read source →
Is wheat bran or wheat germ higher in metals?
Germ was higher in cadmium than bran in monitoring data (median 110 against 64 µg/kg), and both were higher than whole grain.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → For inorganic arsenic, bran (median 14–17 µg/kg) was higher than grain; too few germ results exist to compare.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
References
Works cited on this page, in citation-number order. See Sources for this page’s source inventory. Each title links to a source record with bibliographic details, reported findings, and document provenance.
- GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsDataset
- Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Regulation
- Co-exposure of potentially toxic elements in wheat grains reveals a probabilistic health risk in Southwestern Guizhou, ChinaPeer-reviewed
- A Human Health Risk Assessment of Soil and Crops Contaminated by Heavy Metals in Industrial Regions, Central IranPeer-reviewed
- Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patternsPeer-reviewed
- A high-density, SNP-based consensus map of tetraploid wheat as a bridge to integrate durum and bread wheat genomics and breedingPeer-reviewed
- Evaluation and Dietary Exposure Assessment of Selected Toxic Trace Elements in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum) Imported into the Italian Market: Six Years of Official ControlsPeer-reviewed
- Evaluation of certain food contaminants — Sixty-fourth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food AdditivesGovernment
- Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaPeer-reviewed
- General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Government
- Characterization of Triticum turgidum sspp. durum, turanicum, and polonicum grown in Central Italy in relation to technological and nutritional aspectsPeer-reviewed
- Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodGovernment
- Dietary Exposure to Toxic Metals (Cd, Pb and Hg) from Cereals Marketed in Madeira and the AzoresPeer-reviewed
- Levels of selected essential and non-essential metals in wheat flour and health risk assessment among consumers in EthiopiaPeer-reviewed
- Determination of Chromium Content of Food and Beverages of Plant OriginPeer-reviewed
- Application of microwave-assisted dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction and graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry for ultra-trace determination of lead and cadmium in cereals and agricultural productsPeer-reviewed
- The concentration, source and potential human health risk of heavy metals in the commonly consumed foods in BangladeshPeer-reviewed
- Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with industrial effluentPeer-reviewed
- Determination of the Level of Heavy Metals in the Selected Cereals from Debre Markos Local Market, Amhara Region, EthiopiaPeer-reviewed
- Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationGovernment
- Roles of Soil and Foliar Spray of Zinc Nutrition in Cadmium Reduction of Wheat GrainPeer-reviewed
- Spatial distribution and risk assessment of fluorine and cadmium in rice, corn, and wheat grains in most karst regions of Guizhou province, ChinaPeer-reviewed
- High Arsenic Contamination in the Breast Milk of Mothers Inhabiting the Gangetic Plains of Bihar: A Major Health Risk to InfantsPeer-reviewed
- Effects of foliar fungicide on yield, micronutrients, and cadmium in grains from historical and modern hard winter wheat genotypesPeer-reviewed
- toxic metals like arsenic, cadmium and lead; as well as process contaminants such as acrylamidePeer-reviewed
- Changes in Cadmium Content when Processing Soybean to Miso and Soy SaucePeer-reviewed
- Mercury speciation in selenium enriched wheatPeer-reviewed
- Heavy metal synergistic pollution risk assessment in the soil-crop system of the Nanyang BasinPeer-reviewed
- Health Risks from Heavy Metals via Consumption of Cereals and Vegetables in Isfahan Province, IranPeer-reviewed
- GB 2762-2022 National Food Safety Standard: Maximum Levels of Contaminants in FoodsRegulation
- Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Schedule 19 - Maximum levels of contaminants and natural toxicantsRegulation
- MERCOSUR/GMC/RES. No. 12/11: Reglamento Tecnico MERCOSUR sobre Limites Maximos de Contaminantes Inorganicos en AlimentosRegulation
- Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsRegulation
- Dietary cadmium exposure assessment among the Chinese populationPeer-reviewed
- Evaluation of cadmium, lead, zinc and copper levels in selected ecological cereal food products and their non-ecological counterpartsPeer-reviewed
- Concentration and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements, Lead and Cadmium, in Vegetables and Cereals Consumed in Western IranPeer-reviewed
- Migration of aluminum from food contact materials to food - a health risk for consumers? Part I of III: exposure to aluminum, release of aluminum, tolerable weekly intake (TWI), toxicological effects of aluminum, study design, and methodsPeer-reviewed
- Nickel Content of Food and Estimation of Dietary IntakePeer-reviewed
Sources
Browse Wheat Sources for sources cited on this page and additional discovery candidates. The searchable index distinguishes verified citation use from discovery relationships whose relevance has not been established.
Update history
22 October 2026 — Rebuilt from every wheat record in the library: WHO GEMS/Food monitoring results for wheat grain, durum, spelt, bran and germ, thirty survey and field sources, origin, cultivar, site and milling-fraction comparisons, verified cadmium, lead, arsenic, mercury and nickel limits and stage-led controls.